The opinions expressed in this research document are those of the authors and do not represent official policies of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, and other agencies or organizations that may have provided support, financial or otherwise, for this project.

II. The Cost of Post-Secondary Education ___________________________________67
Evolution of Tuition and Ancillary Fees in Canada_______________________________________________________69

III. Sources of Financial Support __________________________________________71
Financial Support and Expenditures for Part-Time Students______________________________________________73 Differences Across Provinces and Regions ______________________________________________________________74

Acknowledgements
This edition of The Price of Knowledge would not exist without the assistance of a number of colleagues and friends. Though this edition is the first to be prepared by the three of us, it would not exist without the groundbreaking 2002 and 2004 volumes prepared by Alex Usher and Sean Junor, and for that we offer thanks. Chapter 1 includes references to enrolment projections and labour market analysis conducted by Clara Whyte, of Gaïa Vision, and Jean Dubé and Marc Dupéré of JDMD Groupe Conseils. Thanks to Herb O’Heron and Ken Snowdon, longtime postsecondary education researchers and sounding boards, for their instructive comments. Much of Chapter 2 reports on work conducted on behalf of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation by R.A. Malatest and Associates. The data, fully discussed in a separate publication available on the Foundation’s Web site (The Class of 2003 High School Follow-Up Survey) was gathered by a team led by Heather MacDonald, who provided early support. Thanks are due as well to our Foundation colleague Yves Pelletier, who provided helpful advice on an early draft of the chapter, and to Angelo Elias, who conducted much of the data analysis in the chapter. Thanks also to Ross Finnie, of the University of Ottawa, and Christine Laporte, of Statistics Canada, for offering comments and access to their own work in progress. Chapter 3 consists of data gathered by EKOS Research Associates on behalf of the Foundation, Human Resources and Social Development Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Thanks to all parties for supporting the project and enabling the continued collection of student financial data in Canada. Thanks are due to Christine Neill and (again) to Alex Usher for providing data, analysis, expertise and extremely helpful comments regarding Chapter 4. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the many officials working within federal and provincial student aid programs for providing raw data and feedback on the figures regarding government spending on students. Thanks also to the tireless individuals from the Canadian Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators who provided the details concerning student aid program changes discussed in the supplementary tables. Chapter 5 would not exist without the support and advice of Saul Schwartz, from Carleton University; Kerry Dangerfield, Carrie Bibik and Nicholas Borodenko at Prairie Research Associates; Jerry Situ and Leesha Lin at the Canada Student Loans Program; John Mortimer and Patrick Codrington from Ontario’s Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities; and the Canadian Undergraduate Survey and Canadian College Student Survey Consortia. Thanks to Fred Hemingway for his typically insightful comments. Special thanks are owed to Emmanuelle Bourbeau and to Jaime Frederick. Emmanuelle worked primarily on analyzing student financial survey data, while Jaime oversaw the immense job of preparing this report for publication in two languages. Thanks also to Peter Cowan and David Dalgleish, both of whom helped keep our focus sharp. Thanks to our colleagues Noel Baldwin, Jocelyn Charron and Sylvie Lacroix for their support. We greatly appreciate early advice provided by members of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the College Student Alliance. This report, like all others published by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, would not exist without the enduring support of our Board of Directors, and particularly without the commitment of Norman Riddell, who daily challenges us to better inform the policy discussion of access to post-secondary education in Canada. Thanks to all those who provided support and counsel as we prepared this report; any and all errors are those of the authors.

3

Data Sources Used in This Publication
Pan Canadian High School Follow-Up Survey, Class of 2003
R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. and the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation

Financed by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and administered by R.A. Malatest & Associates in collaboration with the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, this study was intended to examine the transitions of high school students two years after graduation. Its data allow us to obtain a profile of respondents’ pathways to post-secondary education, the job market or other activities. The final survey included questions on a number of different themes, including students’ experiences at the high-school and post-secondary levels. The survey was provided to 9,193 high school graduates. Of these, 4,989 were completed, providing a response rate of 54 per cent. The data were weighted to reflect the population of Grade 12 students in each province. Moreover, in several provinces, the data were weighted to take account of the over-representation of different groups in the population. More specifically, data from each province were weighted to reflect the following characteristics: region/school district, language and Aboriginal status.

In order to respond to these research objectives, the survey was administered to two target cohorts, one aged 15 on December 31, 1999, and the other between the ages of 18 and 20 years old at the same time. Each of these two cohorts is interviewed every two years, and at the present time the data for 2000, 2002 and 2004 are available for analysis. The 15-yearold cohort also participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The survey questions are adapted to each age group but several themes are present, as information is collected on the education of respondents and their work experience, as well as information of a more personal nature, including, for example, their future aspirations.

Post-Secondary Education Participation Survey
Statistics Canada

Youth in Transition Survey
Statistics Canada

The Youth in Transition Survey (YITS) is a longitudinal survey led jointly by Statistics Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada. It was created not only to observe the principal transitions experienced by youth between periods of study, internships and the workplace, but also to analyse the principal factors that influence these transitions.

The objective of the Post-Secondary Education Participation Survey (PEPS) is to provide basic indicators on access to, persistence in and financing of post-secondary education in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of Human Resources Development Canada’s (HRDC) Harmonized Canada Student Loans Program. PEPS was administered in February and March of 2002 to a sub-sample of the dwellings in the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Statistics Canada administers the LFS as a monthly household survey of individuals 15 years of age and older in 10 Canadian provinces (the survey excludes persons living on Indian Reserves, full-time members of the Canadian Armed Forces and inmates of correctional institutions). The sub-sample targeted Canadian youth aged 18 to 24 (17 to 24 in Quebec). In total, 5,141 questionnaires were completed from a sample of 6,456 youth identified in the LFS, for a response rate of 79.6 per cent. At the time the survey was administered,

approximately two-thirds of respondents were or had been students. Thus, 3,400 students were surveyed, as well as 1,700 non-students.

Survey of Secondary School Students
Prairie Research Associates Inc.

This survey was conducted in 2004 by Prairie Research Associates Inc. and R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. With the goal of analysing Grade 6 to 12 students’ aspirations for post-secondary study, the survey was administered to secondary students in five provinces: New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta. The questionnaires were distributed in class and were intended to collect data on secondary students’ thoughts about their studies, knowledge of postsecondary studies, understanding of different forms of financial assistance available for the pursuit of postsecondary studies and, finally, on the way in which they intend to pay for their studies. The questionnaire administered to students in grades six through eight included approximately 65 questions, while that administered to students in grades nine through twelve included approximately 110.

In 2006, from more than 90,000 total applicants, 50,000 anglophone Ontarians were randomly selected to respond to the survey. All 3,273 francophone applicants were invited to participate in the survey, and they represent a sub-sample. This process was necessary to assure an adequate number of responses and the analysis of the data is weighted to take this over-sampling into account. In total 13,116 anglophone and 769 francophone applicants responded to the survey, representing an overall response rate of 26%, and a confidence interval of 0.8 percent, 19 times out of 20.

Ontario University Applicant Survey
Acumen Research

Ontario College Applicant Survey
Acumen Research

The Ontario College Applicant Survey is administered annually to college applicants in Ontario by Acumen Research, in collaboration with The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, Ontario College Application Services (OCAS) and the Association of Colleges Applied Arts and Technology in Ontario (ACAATO). OCAS selected a random sample of applicants to whom questionnaires were distributed and from whom they were collected once completed. Each survey participant was mailed a kit including an introductory letter explaining the nature of the survey, a questionnaire and a return envelope. The introductory letter explained that participation in the survey is voluntary and listed the prizes offered to participants.

The Ontario University Applicant Survey is administered annually to university applicants in Ontario by Acumen Research, in collaboration with Ontario University Application Centre (OUAC), which selected a random sample of applicants to whom questionnaires were distributed and from whom they were collected once completed. Each survey participant was mailed a kit including an introductory letter explaining the nature of the survey, a questionnaire and a return envelope. The introductory letter explained that participation in the survey is voluntary and listed the prizes offered to participants. For this survey, a random selection of 10,000 applicants was chosen from the total number of university applicants in Ontario (approximately 90,000 at the time of the survey). In 2001, 9,000 English questionnaires and 1,000 French questionnaires were distributed, and 1,845 were completed and returned, for an overall response rate of 19 per cent. The majority of respondents were from Ontario, with the remainder split more or less equally between Eastern Canada (5 per cent) and Western Canada (7 per cent).

The Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) is a longitudinal Statistics Canada survey in which the same respondents are interviewed annually over a period of six years. Its data allow us to better observe the whole range of transitions and other factors affecting Canadians: family make-up, fluctuations in family income, jobless spells and educational participation. Participation in the SLID is voluntary. The survey targets all individuals in Canada, excluding residents of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, residents of institutions and persons living on Indian reserves. At the beginning of each survey period, the initial sample includes approximately 15,000 households, which are followed for a period of six years. Since the survey is longitudinal, the response rate varies from one year to the next. For more information, please consult the Statistics Canada Web site: www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function= getSurvey&SDDS=3889&lang=fr&db=IMDB&dbg= f&adm=8&dis=2

The Canadian Undergraduate Survey Consortium conducts the annual Canadian Undergraduate Student Survey, providing a snapshot of students at more than 20 universities across Canada. In order to learn about different groups of students, the Consortium surveys different kinds of students each year, on a three-year cycle. In 2000, 2003 and 2006, the CUSC surveyed graduating students. In 2001 and 2004, it surveyed first-year students. And in 2002 and 2005 the CUSC surveyed a sample of all undergraduate students. The analysis presented here is restricted to the surveys of graduating students.

Canadian College Student Survey
Canadian College Student Survey Consortium

National Graduates Survey (NGS)
Statistics Canada

This Statistics Canada survey was designed to determine such factors as: the extent to which graduates of post-secondary programs had been successful in obtaining employment since graduation, the relationship between the graduates’ programs of study and the employment subsequently obtained, the graduates’ job and career satisfaction, the rates of under-employment and unemployment, the type of employment obtained related to career expectations and qualification requirements, and the influence of postsecondary education on occupational achievement. Survey respondents were contacted two years after graduation, and again five years after graduation. In 1992, the sample size was a little more than 36,000 individuals.

The Canadian College Student Survey Consortium has been conducting the annual Canadian College Student Survey since 2002. The survey provides information on college students’ income, expenditures and post-college plans. It surveys students at between 16 and 19 institutions. In this analysis we present findings from the surveys conducted between 2003 and 2006. This analysis of college student debt excludes students in Quebec for two reasons. First, particularly in 2005 and 2006, Quebec college participation in the survey was very low. Second, because Quebec college students pay no tuition, their inclusion in the survey would make it impossible to present figures that accurately represent the situation of college students outside the province.

7

Introduction
The 2002 and 2004 editions of The Price of Knowledge, written by Sean Junor and Alex Usher, were landmark publications. By virtue of their comprehensive presentation and analysis of statistics on access and student finance, they became everyday sources of reference for those working in postsecondary education in Canada. The Third Edition of The Price of Knowledge seeks to build on the basis provided by the previous two editions. On the one hand, it brings to the fore data that have become available since 2004. These include data from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s own studies, such as the follow-up survey of high school students who graduated in 2003 and the survey of student finance, as well as data from sources such as Statistics Canada (notably, the Youth in Transition Survey). On the other hand, this edition seeks to sharpen a number of arguments related to the importance of continuing to improve access to post-secondary education and to the implications of the changing nature of the post-secondary student body. By international standards, Canada has performed well in terms of facilitating participation in postsecondary studies. As we argue in Chapter 1, this does not mean that we can afford to be complacent. As the economy continues to evolve, more and more post-secondary graduates are needed to ensure that Canada has access to the human capital—the practical skills, the ability to innovate, and the knowledge—it needs to remain prosperous and competitive. This need for more graduates comes as we approach the time when the number of young people in the population will begin to decline. Currently, the baby boom echo generation is working its way through the education system, putting pressure on a number of universities to accommodate larger numbers of students. In only a few short years, however, the size of the young adult cohort will begin to fall, and, by 2016, will be smaller than it is today. In less than 10 years, then, we will be asking ourselves whether we took the time to put in place the policies needed to ensure that the proportion of youth accessing post-secondary education could continue to grow. If it turns out that the answer is no, then, unavoidably, the country will experience a deficit in human capital that will place it at a disadvantage. Since students from relatively advantaged backgrounds—for instance, students from middle- or highincome families, or students whose parents earned a post-secondary degree—are already participating in post-secondary education in significant numbers, we must make gains among those from less comfortable circumstances if we are to improve the participation rate further. Students from low-income families, students with no history of post-secondary education in their families, and Aboriginal students are all under-represented in post-secondary studies. It is among these students, then, that efforts to enhance access to higher education must be focused. Making progress will not be easy, however, because it is precisely these students who tend to face the greatest barriers. As we demonstrate in Chapter 2, lack of financial resources, poor academic preparation, poor information, and lack of interest in further education all pose barriers both to accessing post-secondary education and to persisting once studies have begun. These barriers affect underrepresented groups of students most acutely. What’s more, the different barriers tend to compound: the same students likely to be affected by one kind of barrier are also likely to be affected by others. This means that policies to enable students to overcome barriers to post-secondary education must be comprehensive in scope. Once students have gained access to college or university, they begin to face the day-to-day challenge of paying for their studies and living expenses. In Chapter 3, we outline how students seek to make

ends meet by tapping into multiple sources of income sufficient to cover their costs, which, on average, amount to $14,500 per year. Most students must juggle more than two sources of income, which means making decisions about how much work they can manage while in school, and how much money to borrow (and from where). What is clear is that without access to government student financial aid programs, many students simply would not be able to pay the bills: it is only because of the availability of student loans and grants that the average student’s income is able to match the average costs they face. The question of whether the student financial assistance system delivers the right amounts and types of aid to the different groups of students, however, remains somewhat open, and a topic requiring further investigation. In Chapter 4, we begin to address this point by examining how governments support students. The good news is that improvements to need-based student financial assistance have been made in recent years, including the creation of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the introduction of new provincial and federal grants, and the increase to the maximum allowable amounts of aid. The increasing proportion of need-based aid that is provided in the form of non-repayable grants, as opposed to loans, is especially encouraging, since grants have been shown to have a positive effect on the ability of students with financial need to continue and complete their studies. The bad news is that these changes have been overshadowed by the rapid growth in transfers to students that are not directed to those with financial need. Most of these “universal” forms of student support come in the shape of education tax credits, which do not help those students facing the greatest financial barriers to pay the bills while in school. This balance between universal and need-based student support programs, which is being further affected by the trend at the provincial level to introduce universal post-graduation tax rebates, is one of a number of developments that should be taken into account as

the debate about how best to modernize student financial assistance in Canada begins to intensify. Students who rely on student financial assistance to help finance their studies graduate with debt. If the investment in financial aid is to be effective over the long term, however, borrowing levels must not be allowed to rise so high that students drop out before completing, or graduate with unmanageable debt loads. As we show in Chapter 5, trends relating to student debt are mixed. On the university side, the average debt of those completing an undergraduate program has stabilized since 2000. On the college side, however, the proportion of students with relatively high amounts of debt has been increasing. Meanwhile, other dimensions of the student debt issue continue to need attention, including the number of students who default during repayment and the take-up rates of interest relief programs designed to ease repayment difficulties. Moreover, we have only begun to examine the implications that different levels of debt will hold for students as they make the transition out of post-secondary education and into the labour market. We need to ask how best to ensure that this transition is successful and keep in mind that we not only need to increase the number of students who undertake a post-secondary education, but to increase the number of successful graduates as well. Taken together, we hope that these five chapters will serve to inform ongoing discussions across Canada about the need to enhance access to post-secondary education, about the needs of different groups of students, about the importance and impact of student financial assistance programs, and about the ways in which student support programs can be improved. Of course, as the Foundation’s research program and the work of other agencies continues, new data on access and student finance will continue to become available. We look forward to crunching those numbers and presenting our interpretation of them in the near future, in the next edition of The Price of Knowledge.

The Price of Knowledge
Access and Student Finance in Canada

Chapter I

Why Access Matters

1

11

Chapter 1

I. Introduction
Canada needs a highly skilled and educated workforce to remain competitive and sustain its prosperity in an increasingly global and knowledge-based economy. As Kevin Lynch, the present Clerk of the Privy Council, recently pointed out, education both drives economic growth as a whole and determines the extent of any individual’s personal success. “Well-educated knowledge workers are the new ‘natural resource’ of the new global economy,” he argues. “Not many investments produce such large economic payoffs as education” (Lynch, 2006, 13–14). An increasingly skilled and educated workforce is one in which more and more of its participants have completed post-secondary studies successfully. Already, nearly two out of every three new jobs require some form of post-secondary credential (Bergeron et al., 2004). It is essential, therefore, that young Canadians have access to post-secondary studies and the support needed to ensure successful completion of their programs. While Canada has performed relatively well in terms of participation in higher education, the country cannot afford to be complacent. In fact, maintaining, let alone increasing, the number of post-secondary graduates in coming years will prove challenging for two main reasons: • First, within the next 10 years the size of the young adult population will grow, and then begin to decline. Within 20 years, the pool of typical postsecondary-age Canadians will be substantially shallower than it is today. To keep the inflow of new workers equipped for the knowledge economy at least to present-day levels, a greater proportion of young adults will have to access and complete post-secondary studies. • Second, the rate of participation in postsecondary education among certain segments of the population, notably those from families with above average incomes or with parents who themselves went to college or university, is already fairly high. This means that significant gains can only be made by improving participation among those from less advantaged backgrounds, who currently are much less likely to pursue studies past high school. Because of the range of barriers to access that students from such backgrounds face, and given that little progress was made during the 1990s in making access more equitable, this will not be easy. This second challenge is compounded in regions with sizable and growing Aboriginal populations. Aboriginal youth are currently much less likely to pursue post-secondary education than nonAboriginal youth. In provinces where the youth population is increasingly Aboriginal in composition, fewer and fewer students will graduate from higher education unless action is taken to address the access gap. At the same time that Canada faces these challenges, the educational standing of many other countries is on the rise. Recent reports by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Conference Board of Canada (OECD, 2006; Conference Board of Canada, 2007) argue that Canada’s competitors are increasing their investments in the education sector and improving their performance. Since Canada has historically been ahead of the pack, it is normal for it to experience less rapid annual growth in postsecondary participation compared with countries

whose educational systems were developed more recently. Without a sustained effort to continue to improve its educational outcomes, however, Canada will see its international advantage in education erode. This chapter will begin by expanding on the case for widening access to higher education, focusing on both the needs of the modern economy and the changing demographics of the country. It will then

review how the country has performed to date, noting both its relative success and, at the same time, the significant degree of inequality that continues to exist in access to higher education. The following section will discuss in more detail the reasons why improving participation in post-secondary education will be a challenge in years to come. The chapter will end by suggesting some ways forward.

13

Chapter 1

II. The Target
There is substantial consensus that the jobs of the present—and increasingly those of the future— overwhelmingly require candidates with some form of post-secondary education. This is driven by two developments: newly created jobs are clustering in sectors of the economy that increasingly require workers at ease with complexity, technology, and the rapid analysis and circulation of information; and the majority of existing jobs that are becoming vacant due to retirements require highly skilled people to fill them. Canada, therefore, will require more and more post-secondary graduates to meet the twin challenges of filling the new jobs the knowledge-based economy is creating and to replace retiring older workers. This reality is highlighted in a recent analysis commissioned by the Government of Canada (Bergeron et al., 2004), which shows that nearly two out of every three jobs created between 2004 and 2008 will require some form of post-secondary education (Figure 1.II.1). (By comparison, in 2003, 58% of jobs not occupied by students were in these occupations.) Employment growth will be particularly strong for jobs requiring a university education in such fields as health, natural and applied sciences, the social sciences, education, and government. In addition to these new jobs, two-thirds of the projected retirements will occur in existing jobs that require higher education with the greatest number of vacancies requiring university degrees. Provincial studies reach similar conclusions. Ontario, for instance, predicts that 60% of the new jobs created by 2009 will require post-secondary education, whereas the B.C. government expects that by 2013, 70% of all new jobs created will call for some post-secondary training (including 28% that will require a university degree). New Brunswick expects the demand for workers with a post-secondary credential to grow by 20% by 2011 (Government of British Columbia, 2005; Government of New Brunswick, 2003; Government of Ontario, 2005).

If Canada is to maintain its current level of prosperity, however, the need for highly skilled workers could be even greater. This is because of changing demographics, and, in particular, Canada’s aging population. In 1956, during the middle of the baby boom, roughly half (47%) of Canada’s population was under the age of 25. By 2000, due to a decreasing birth rate and increased life expectancy, that proportion had shrunk to just one-third. By 2026, it could drop to 25% (Statistics Canada, 2001). Meanwhile, those over 65 now make up 12% of the population and are projected to comprise 20% of it within the next two decades. This will result in fewer and fewer people of working-age supporting a larger non-working-age population. According to Statistics Canada’s medium population growth scenario, the dependency ratio (the rate of children and seniors to those aged 16 to 64) will grow from 44% in 2006 to 61% in 2031 (Figure 1.II.2). As the relative size of the working-age population shrinks, Canada’s economy will rely on relatively fewer workers to create the wealth needed to support its dependent population of children and seniors. The only way for fewer people to create more wealth is for them to become more productive. The key to increasing productivity is education, the foundation of ingenuity and innovation. This is the

view of, among others, Kevin Lynch. Lynch argues that, with a growing dependency ratio and more seniors placing demands on public health care, pensions and other social services, “the critical challenge facing Canada is to increase productivity growth so that our living standard continues to rise.” Productivity is improved through investments in human capital: “investments in more education and better skills—human capital—allow workers to be more efficient and effective” (Lynch, 2006, 12–13). The combined impact of the knowledge economy and the aging of Canada’s population make post-secondary enrolment and completion more important than ever. Without greater participation in post-secondary education, Canada risks seeing its productivity and prosperity shrink. This does not mean, however, that the benefits of wider participation in post-secondary education are purely economic. Junor and Usher (2004, 321–327), among others, have described the many other benefits of post-secondary graduation that accrue to both individuals and to society, including better health, reduced crime rates and increased civic engagement. Increasing participation in post-secondary education is also important if Canada is to avoid the problems that arise when social divisions become overly entrenched. Ideally, education can serve to level the playing field, allowing those from less

Figure 1.II.2 — Youth Share of the Population and Dependency Ratio Projections According to a Medium Growth Scenario

16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2006
Source: Statistics Canada, 2005.

0.57 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.51

0.61

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

15- to 24-yearold share of the population Dependency ratio

14%

13%

12%

0.3
11% 11% 11%

0.2 0.1 0

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

C H A P T E R 1 — W H Y A C C E S S M AT T E R S

15

advantaged backgrounds to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to get ahead. When education is not widely accessible, however, it can serve to accentuate rather than alleviate inequity. As postsecondary education becomes even more important to individual economic advancement, the social consequences of the lower participation rates of low-income Canadians, youth whose parents did not

pursue higher education and Aboriginal peoples increase accordingly.1 The risks associated with the exclusion of such groups from the benefits of a postsecondary education include not only lower incomes for individuals and lower productivity, but also an increasingly fractured society and a resulting poorer quality of life for all Canadians.

Labour Shortages: Are We There Yet?
Canadian business leaders have become increasingly concerned about the prospect of a shortage in skilled and educated workers. As David Stewart-Patterson, executive vice-president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, remarked at a 2006 conference hosted by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, “we are moving into the second half of a long-term transition from an economy in which we did not have enough jobs for our people, to one in which we will not have enough people to do all the jobs that need doing.” Much of the discussion centres on shortages of skilled labour that may appear in the years to come. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that Canada is already experiencing gaps in the labour market. A recent Globe and Mail series addressed existing labour shortages, which are not limited to the booming oil and gas industry based in Alberta. According to Andrew Ramlo of the Urban Futures Institute in Vancouver, the current shortage of skilled labourers is driving wages up in certain sectors, causing individuals in other lines of work to reorient themselves, potentially draining other sectors of the economy. If this continues, he warns, this skilled labour shortage can lead to a general shortage (Brethour and Scoffield, 2006). In July, 2006, the Alberta government announced plans to address its growing labour shortage by seeking to bring in nearly 100,000 new workers to the province over the course of 10 years (CBC News, 2006). In early 2007, the Ottawa Business Journal reported on a growing concern among area businesses over a looming shortage of high-technology workers (Zakaluzny, 2007). A recent study conducted in Quebec by Jobboom revealed that the province is already suffering from a shortage in health care, engineering and construction (CBC News, 2007). In many regions and sectors, therefore, labour market shortages are already becoming part of everyday Canadian economic life.

1.

These rates are documented in the next section.

17

Chapter 1

III. Performance
On the surface, it appears that Canada is well placed to meet the challenges ahead. It has a strong rate of participation in post-secondary education. There are many different ways to measure performance in terms of participation in post-secondary education. The first is to look at educational attainment—that is, the proportion of the population that has obtained a post-secondary credential. Canada’s performance in terms of educational attainment is the highest in the OECD. In 2004, 53% of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 34 had completed a postsecondary program of studies (OECD, 2006, 4). This includes 27% who had earned a university degree and 26% who had earned a college credential. A second method measures the proportion of the young adult population that has pursued post-secondary education (the participation rate). A number of studies have reported participation rates using different definitions of participation and relating to youth of different age groups. Certain approaches measure only the share of the population that is currently enrolled or has completed a post-secondary program at a specific point in time. Others capture the proportion of youth who have ever pursued higher education, regardless of their current enrolment status. • Drolet uses data from Statistics Canada’s Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics to report on the participation of 18- to 24-year-olds in postsecondary studies. She reports that 65% of youth in this age group were enrolled in or had completed post-secondary studies when surveyed in 2001. This includes a university participation rate of 30% and a college participation rate of 35%. • Using the same data set, Frenette (2005a) reports that 67% of youth aged 19 to 21 (20 to 22 in Quebec and Ontario, where the CEGEP system and Grade 13, respectively, delayed entry into university) were enrolled in post-secondary studies (34% in college and 32% in university) during the year preceding the survey, which was conducted in 2002. • Using Statistics Canada’s Post-Secondary Education Participation Survey, Finnie and Laporte (a) report that 65% of 18- to 24-year-olds (17 to 24 in Quebec) had enrolled in higher education by 2002 (30% in university and 35% in college), though, unlike Drolet’s and Frenette’s, these figures include students who had abandoned their studies. Looking at participation data based on actual enrolment information reveals a somewhat different picture. The enrolment rate refers to the proportion of youth of a certain age actually enrolled in a postsecondary program at a given time. Among the estimated 3.1 million Canadians aged 18 to 24 in 2004, 574,142 were enrolled full-time at a university for a rate of 18.5% (another 2.5% were enrolled part-time) (Statistics Canada, 2006a). Reliable data on college enrolment are not available. Junor and Usher estimated a full-time college enrolment rate among 18- to 21-year-olds of 15% in 2002–03, and a full-time post-secondary enrolment rate among 18- to 24-year-olds of 35%. There is a considerable difference between the survey-based participation rates noted above and the enrolment rates. This is because students who completed their studies, or in some cases who previously studied at the postsecondary level without finishing a program, are omitted from enrolment data but included in the participation rate. A fourth way of measuring participation in postsecondary education is to track the behaviour of a cohort of youth over a period of years, as has been done in two recent studies. The larger of the two, Statistics Canada’s Youth in Transition Survey (YITS), found that 76% of individuals who were between the ages of 18 and 20 in 2000 had pursued some form

of post-secondary studies by 2004. The Class of 2003 survey prepared for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, while more modest and regional in scope, reflects similar results, revealing that 78% of high school graduates had pursued some form of post-secondary education within two years of completing secondary studies. Taken together, the studies show that around three quarters of today’s young adults access post-secondary education within a few years of finishing high school. These last figures are certainly the most encouraging, especially in view of the “target” for post-secondary accreditation discussed in Section II. Dig a little deeper, however, and the story is somewhat less reassuring, for several reasons. First, not all of those who start a post-secondary education complete it successfully. Though 76% of the participants in the YITS survey had enrolled in higher education, 16% of them (representing 12% of the total sample) had dropped out. In the case of the Class of 2003, 10% of those who started a postsecondary education (or 8% of the total sample) dropped out within the two-year period covered by the survey. All told, roughly one-third of youth surveyed in either study did not enrol in or dropped out of post-secondary education (Table 1.III.1).

The YITS study is particularly interesting because it shows that, over time, the educational outcomes of some members of a given age cohort improve, while those of others get worse. Over the four years from 2000 to 2004, for instance, the proportion of the age cohort surveyed that did not access post-secondary education declined from 39% to 24%. At the same time, the proportion that had accessed postsecondary education but dropped out before earning a degree rose from 5% to 12%. As a given group of teenagers ages, therefore, both participation in and discontinuation of post-secondary studies rise (Figure 1.III.1). Because many who access university or college drop out before completing their studies, the relatively high rates of post-secondary participation reported in the YITS and Class of 2003 studies will not translate into as high a rate of post-secondary attainment. This represents an additional loss of students along the pathway from secondary school to post-secondary graduation that is costly both for the individuals concerned and for society as a whole. The second reason the overall story regarding access to post-secondary education is not entirely reassuring has to do with equity. While average participation in post-secondary education may still

Table 1.III.1 — Participation in Post-Secondary Education
Class of 2003 Youth surveyed in 2005, two years after they had been enrolled in grade 12 in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan2 Youth in Transition Survey Youths aged 18–20 in December 1999 surveyed at age 22 to 24 in December 2003

11% Never enrolled in post-secondary Never enrolled in post-secondary or dropped out of post-secondary

59% 22% 30%

8%

44%

21% 24% 36%

12%

Source: Shaienks, Eisl-Culkin and Bussière, 2006; Malatest, 2007.

2.

Note that the Class of 2003 survey only covers those who were still in school in Grade 12, and therefore does not account for those who dropped out of high school before then. Manitoba respondents were surveyed in 2006, three years after Grade 12.

C H A P T E R 1 — W H Y A C C E S S M AT T E R S

19

Figure 1.III.1 — PSE Status Over Time (of youth aged 18–20 in 1999 and who are no longer in high school)
50%
49%

* Participation rates by family income have been calculated only among youth living with at least one parent. Source: Drolet, 2005.

seem relatively high, opportunities to participate are by no means equitably distributed. Studies continue to confirm that enrolment in higher education is tilted in favour of those from wealthier families, those whose parents studied at the post-secondary level and those who are not Aboriginal. As Figure 1.III.2 demonstrates, youth from families earning more than $100,000 are much more likely to enrol in post-secondary studies than those whose

families earn under $25,000. This inequity stems entirely from university level enrolment—46% of the wealthiest attend while only 20% of those in the lowest-income families enter university. At the college level, there is little difference in participation rates across income groups. The equity gap can be measured in other ways. Children of post-secondary-educated parents are substantially more likely to enrol in higher education

than those whose parents’ educational attainment does not exceed high school. Four out of five children of university graduates pursued some form of higher education by age 24, compared with just 53% of high school graduates’ offspring. Furthermore, there is a substantial participation gap between Aboriginal youth and their non-Aboriginal counterparts (see page 11). This inequity can be illustrated further by returning to the YITS and Class of 2003 studies. These studies show that of every 100 young adults, a little more than 60 either complete or remain enrolled in post-secondary studies in the two- to threeyear period immediately following high school.3 Conversely, fewer than 40 either do not finish high

school, do not access post-secondary education after high school, or drop out of post-secondary education. In the case of students whose parents did not themselves obtain a post-secondary education, however, the number completing or continuing a post-secondary education falls to about half—that is 48 per cent, as opposed to 68 per cent in the case of those whose parents did obtain a post-secondary degree, and 82 per cent in the case of those whose parents both obtained a university degree. Where First Nations students are concerned, the outcome is much worse: only 28 per cent are enrolled in post-secondary education or have completed a degree in the period immediately following high school (Table 1.III.2).

Table 1.III.2 — Estimated post-secondary status two to three years after usual high school graduation age (or roughly by age 20)4
Those whose parents did not obtain a postsecondary degree Those whose parents Those obtained whose parents a postobtained a secondary university degree degree

General Population

Aboriginal youth

Non-Aboriginal Youth

Still enrolled in or have completed postsecondary education Did not graduate high school, did not access post-secondary education after high school, or dropped out of postsecondary education Primary data source

60%

48%

68%

82%

28%

60%

39%

52%

32%

18%

72%

40%

YITS (youth aged 18–20 in 1999, surveyed at age 20–22 in 2001) —

Class of 2003 (students who were in Grade 12 in 2003 and who finished high school, surveyed two years later in Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, and three years later in Manitoba). The figures were adjusted in order to take into account the proportion of students in the different categories who would have dropped out of high school before they could be surveyed in Grade 12 or who otherwise would not have finished high school. The authors used a customized report of the high school graduate rates for the different groups of students from the first cycle of the YITS study as the basis upon which the adjusted survey figures were calculated.

Class of 2003 (students who were in Grade 12 in 2003 and who finished high school, surveyed two years later in Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and three years later in Manitoba; the survey included 483 Aboriginal students). The figures were adjusted in order to take into account the proportion of Aboriginal students who would have dropped out of high school before they could be surveyed in Grade 12 or who otherwise would not have finished high school. The authors used the 2001 census figure for the proportion of Aboriginal youth aged 20–24 who did not finish high school, as cited in Mendelson 2006, as the basis upon which the adjusted survey figures were calculated.

Notes

Note: Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

3. 4.

The figure is slightly higher, as noted above, if one refers to the results of YITS Cycle 3, which took place four years after the initial survey when respondents were between the ages of 18 and 20. The figures cited in this table are based in part on estimates calculated by the authors using figures obtained from two surveys; the figures do not all come directly from the surveys themselves. See the notes at the bottom of the table.

C H A P T E R 1 — W H Y A C C E S S M AT T E R S

21

First Nations Students: From High School to Post-Secondary Education
In the case of First Nations students, Michael Mendelson argues that the key factor affecting post-secondary participation is the low high school graduation rate (Mendelson, 2006). Using census data, Mendelson determines that 58% of First Nations people between the ages of 20 and 24 living on reserve had not completed a high school education and so were not in a position to make a transition to higher education. First Nations educational attainment is lowest in the western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where the youth population is becoming increasingly Aboriginal (see Figure 1.III.3). Any efforts to improve Aboriginal participation in post-secondary education, therefore, must begin with a substantial increase in Aboriginal high school graduation rates. Conversely, given the rising share of the youth population that is Aboriginal, a failure to improve Aboriginal high school graduation rates in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will mean that their overall postsecondary participation rates will decline, placing them at a considerable disadvantage in the context of the knowledge economy. The results from the Class of 2003 study lend support to this argument. The post-secondary participation gap between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal youth shrinks when considering only students who graduated from high school. The Class of 2003 survey reveals that 65% of Aboriginal youth who finished twelfth grade in 2003 had pursued some post-secondary studies within two years, compared to 80% of non-Aboriginal respondents.5 As the table below demonstrates, while completing high school does not close the Aboriginal participation gap completely, it reduces it significantly.

Figure 1.III.3 — Aboriginal Share (projected) of the 15- to 24-Year-Old Population in 2006 and 2017

Table 1.III.3 — Post-Secondary Attainment Among Aboriginal and Total Population in Canada
Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Relative Gap

20- to 24-year-old population in 2001 Youth in 2005 or 2006 who graduated high school in 2003
Source: Malatest, 2007; Census Data from Mendelson, 2006.

40% 65%

68% 80%

70% 23%

Mendelson warns against dismissing this situation as a problem only for Aboriginal Peoples. As he writes, “[the challenges Aboriginal Peoples face] will have an increasing negative impact on the well-being of all of Canada, particularly in the West and the North. It is critical for all Canadians

that this dire situation changes for the better.” Concrete steps, therefore, must be taken to understand the unique barriers to post-secondary education that Aboriginal youth face and how to overcome them (Mendelson, 2006, 35–37).6

Furthermore, as Drolet (2005) notes, the equity gap in university participation has not changed substantially since the early 1990s. Using data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, she finds that the youth from the wealthiest families were still more than twice as likely as those from the least well-off households to enrol in university at the end of the decade. In their examination of data from the School Leavers Survey and the YITS survey, Finnie et al. (2004), find that the equity gap has actually widened in recent years, arguing that family background became a stronger predictor of postsecondary enrolment during the 1990s, and that the “disparity in post-secondary participation by parental education level seems to have increased over time.”7 Moreover, they report that the participation rate of males from families with the lowest levels of educational attainment actually declined (Finnie et al. 2004, 12–13). This is a key point, for it shows that the inequity in post-secondary participation is not a problem that will necessarily

resolve itself over time simply by virtue of the fact that the advent of the knowledge economy has made educational attainment more important than ever before.8 A third reason for concern is that Canada’s high overall international ranking in terms of educational attainment masks somewhat poorer results in terms of the proportion of the population earning a university degree. Canada’s top overall ranking stems from its robust college and trade/vocational sector: whereas its college attainment rate leads the OECD, Canada ranks sixth in university degree attainment, behind the United States and several Northern European countries. As noted earlier, the greatest job growth in Canada is expected to be in those occupations that require a university degree. This is not to suggest that the college sector is less important. Rather, the point here is simply that Canada may not be as advantaged internationally when it comes to producing certain types of graduates needed to fill some key positions in the knowledge economy.

6.

For an example of one possible approach that is currently being implemented and evaluation by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, see the description of the “Making Education Work” pilot project on the Foundation’s website at http://www.millenniumscholarships.ca/en/ research/ppMEW.asp. The data source used in this analysis does not include information concerning students’ family income. Parental educational attainment is used as a proxy for socio-economic status. There is, however, some disagreement on this point. Corak et al. report that the equity gap in participation shrunk slightly in the 1990s. They suggest that the strength of the relationship between family income and participation in higher education diminished following the decision to increase student loan limits during the mid-1990s. Furthermore, it is important to note that participation in university among low-income students increased significantly during the 1980s, before leveling off in the 1990s.

7. 8.

C H A P T E R 1 — W H Y A C C E S S M AT T E R S

23

Fourth, while the post-secondary participation rate in Canada may be relatively high, the rate of increase is likely levelling off. This was the conclusion of a recent OECD report, which attracted considerable attention for its observation that “Canada reported the lowest increase in tertiary enrolments of all OECD countries in absolute terms, with only 4% more tertiary students in 2002 than in 1995, compared to a 49% increase in the OECD on average.” The report went on to note that “tertiary enrolment rates have barely increased compared to 1995, suggesting that the demand for tertiary qualifications is static in Canada, and it will be relatively easy for other countries to catch up.” (OECD, 2006, 5). It is doubtful, however, that the growth in enrolment is as low as the OECD suggests.9 Statistics Canada notes that, while university enrolment was

declining in the mid-1990s, it is currently growing again; indeed, total undergraduate university enrolment grew by almost 21% between 1999–2000 and 2004–05, suggesting that the OECD’s snapshot of the trend in the late 1990s is outdated (although Statistics Canada does point out that the annual growth rate reported in 2004–05 is the lowest so far this decade) (Statistics Canada, 2006b). Unfortunately, the lack of reliable up-to-date figures on total college enrolment in Canada hampers efforts to paint an accurate picture of overall current post-secondary enrolment trends. One thing is clear, however: the gap between Canada and other OECD countries in terms of postsecondary participation is closing, as those countries with historically lower attainment rates are able to make more rapid gains.

9.

One reason for this is that the OECD may not have had access to up-to-date college enrolment figures, and may have used university figures that reflected the stagnation that occurred in the late 1990s more than the rapid growth experiences in the early 2000s.

25

Chapter 1

IV. The Challenge
Canada’s population is aging and its economy is rapidly evolving. Both developments are increasing demand for a skilled and educated labour force precisely at a time when the number of young people entering the job market is due to fall. International competition for skilled workers only adds to the challenge of building a workforce qualified to perform in a knowledge economy. These combined pressures make it imperative that Canada increase the level of educational attainment among its people. Figure 1.IV.1 demonstrates the projected size of the main post-secondary-age population, which will continue to grow into the next decade, but is expected to decline by nearly 300,000 individuals by 2026. In order to flesh out the implications of these demographic trends, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation recently commissioned a series of post-secondary participation projections. These projections, conducted by JDMD Groupe Conseils, are based on Statistics Canada’s Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, which currently provides information on post-secondary enrolment dating back to the early 1990s, and focus on different socio-economic and demographic factors. JDMD was asked to project both the likely participation scenario and to compute the participation rates that will be required to maintain current enrolment levels, given the declining youth cohort. It should be noted that, in focusing simply on what is needed to maintain current enrolment levels, we leave aside for the moment the need to increase the number of Canadian post-secondary students.10 Figure 1.IV.2 provides an overview of the projections. It demonstrates how the “echo boom” generation (that is, the children of the baby boomers) are entering into the post-secondary age group. Depending on the demographic scenario (both optimistic and pessimistic scenarios are presented) enrolment in higher education is likely to increase until around 2013. At that point, the pool of typical post-secondary-age Canadians will begin to decline. At some point between 2017 and 2021, it is likely that there will be fewer post-secondary students than in 2005 unless the participation rate increases.

Figure 1.IV.1 — Projected Population by Age Group According to a Medium Growth Scenario
3,250,000 3,150,000 3,100,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 3,000,000 2,950,000 2,900,000 2,850,000
2006
Source: Statistics Canada, 2005a.
18- to 24-Year-Old Population (Projected) Actual 18- to 24-Year-Old Population in 2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

10. It is also worth noting that our concern is not merely enrolment, but completion. As noted above, a substantial number of post-secondary students abandon their studies prior to graduation. In the second chapter we explore the barriers that lead to dropping out. In the fourth, we look at the clear relationship between accumulated debt levels and abandonment of post-secondary studies.

If increased participation in post-secondary education is required, where will the new students come from? The most obvious solution is to look to those currently under-represented in higher education—low-income Canadians, Aboriginal youth and those whose parents lack post-secondary credentials. The challenge of increasing participation rates among these key groups is illustrated in the second part of the commissioned projections.

The projection shown in Figure 1.IV.3 takes as its starting point the objective of maintaining current post-secondary enrolment levels throughout the next 15 years. It also assumes that it is unlikely that the already high participation rate of youth whose families are in the top income quintile (currently about 60% among 16- to 24-year-olds in this income group) will increase any further. It then demonstrates the extent to which the participation rate of

those in the bottom four income quintiles would need to increase simply to maintain 2005 enrolment levels. Because the youth population is projected to increase in the short term, there is no need to increase participation for about 10 years in order

to maintain the status quo. As we approach the 2020s, however, it is clear that participation rates for those in the lower income groups will have to increase significantly—and quickly.

Equitable Access to Post-Secondary Education: A Roadmap
As we have seen, access to higher education in Canada is far from equitable. It is hard to imagine that Canada’s post-secondary enrolment objectives could be met by focusing on improving the already high participation among those in the highest income brackets. The logical approach is to focus on the largest available pool of individuals—those who are currently not on the pathway to higher education. In order to reach the higher education goals various governments in Canada have set for the coming years, therefore, participation in higher education among low-income, first-generation and Aboriginal youth must increase. A strategy designed to meet the needs of the knowledge economy, therefore, is essentially one designed to improve the educational attainment of those under-represented in post-secondary classrooms across the country. Table 1.IV.1 provides a sense of the challenge of making participation in higher education both more equitable and more widespread. While college enrolment is fairly even across income lines, access to university remains largely the domain of the well-off. Youth from families earning more than $100,000 are more than twice as likely as those from families earning less than $25,000 to pursue university studies. Two conclusions can be drawn from a review of these data. First, substantial effort must be made to encourage youth from low-income families to engage in post-secondary education. In addition to cultivating a greater interest in higher education, resources must be allocated to preparing these young Canadians for the academic, motivational and financial requirements of higher education. In the past, Canada has increased its

Table 1.IV.1 — Post-Secondary Participation by Family Income and Parental Education
Before-Tax Parental Income Range University Participation Rate College Participation Rate Total Participation Rate

Less than $25,000 $25,000–$50,000 $50,001–$75,000 $75,001–$100,000 More than $100,000
Highest Level of Parental Education

overall post-secondary participation rates by enrolling more low-income students. Evidence from Corak, Lipps and Zhao suggests that Canada made substantial gains in the post-secondary participation of low-income Canadians during the 1980s and early 1990s. Drolet, however, argues that the gap between wealthy and low-income Canadians has remained stable since the mid-1990s. Renewed effort must be made, therefore, to ensure that we build on the successes of earlier decades. Second, Canada’s colleges and universities must be better able to support non-traditional students. As we will discuss in Chapter 2, academic perfor-

mance is tightly linked to socio-economic status. Students from families where there is little history of advanced education are likely to have academic needs that post-secondary institutions may not yet be ready to meet. Institutions concerned with having sufficient resources to provide a top-quality education to their students must be prepared to tailor these resources to non-traditional students. In addition to being adequately funded to support new kinds of students, they must also put in place the appropriate services to help these students overcome the barriers to completing a post-secondary program.

This projection exercise leads to two conclusions: • First, increasing post-secondary enrolment and attainment will require substantial efforts directed toward under-represented youth—those from low-income families, those from families with no history of post-secondary education, and Aboriginal youth. Without developing and implementing measures to increase their academic preparation for higher education, reduce the financial burden of post-secondary studies, and encourage them to consider post-secondary education as part of their future, too many will continue to miss out on higher education and the opportunities it offers, to their own detriment and that of Canadian society. The result will be a country with fewer college and university graduates, overall, at precisely the time that Canada’s competitors are catching up in terms of their own educational performance. • Second, the required gains will not come easily. Earlier, we presented evidence that access did not become more equitable in the 1990s. As we demonstrate in the next chapter, moreover, there are a multitude of complex and compounding barriers to higher education that affect precisely those students who need to be persuaded to enrol. Those who do enrol in higher education face barriers to completion, be they academic, financial, or motivational. Without providing students the tools necessary to overcome these barriers, we are unlikely to see any significant shrinkage of the equity gap in access to higher education.

29

Chapter 1

V. Conclusion and Recommendations
In this chapter, we have argued that wider participation in post-secondary studies—whether offered by universities, colleges or trade schools—is essential to Canada’s ability to meet the twin challenges of a global knowledge economy and an aging population. Providing young Canadians from all backgrounds with the opportunity to pursue higher education is essential both to the country’s continuing prosperity in the 21st century and to the moderation of inequities in our society. Canada has a positive record with regard to postsecondary participation, but is in danger of resting on its laurels. The gap between Canadian educational performance and that of its competitors is narrowing. Future progress depends on increasing the participation rates of precisely those students who face the greatest barriers at a faster rate than in recent years. These students tend to come from low-income families, to have parents with little or no post-secondary experience, or to be Aboriginal. Improving their educational outcomes will require the provision of support and encouragement before they enrol in higher education and during their studies. To increase participation in post-secondary education enough to maintain the required supply of skilled and educated labour and in time to offset the pending drop in the youth population, therefore, two crucial steps are needed: post-secondary age youth are adequately informed about the opportunities higher education provides and the options available to them. Furthermore, it is crucial that students are properly prepared for the rigours of post-secondary studies. Finally, families must have access to the resources needed to manage the costs of post-secondary studies without accumulating unmanageable debt. Efforts to help students most affected by such barriers must begin early in a student’s education—rather than as an afterthought following high school graduation. Ultimately, Canada’s goal should be to make the transition to post-secondary studies from high school as seamless and uncomplicated as that from elementary to secondary school.

Expand, improve and reorient the postsecondary system
University and college administrators are quick to point out that Canada’s institutions of higher learning require significant investment merely to maintain current capacity and standards of instruction. The challenge Canada faces, however, is not that of maintaining the status quo, but of reorienting its post-secondary sector towards educating greater numbers of students from previously underrepresented groups. This requires not simply more investment, but a serious discussion about what new investments should be used for. If efforts to encourage enrolment in higher education among youth who may face greater academic, financial and motivational hurdles than the current student population are to be successful, support mechanisms must be established to deliver on the promise of higher education. More energy and resources must be devoted to putting in place a post-secondary system that can not only handle more students, but

Implement effective measures to improve equitable access to post-secondary education
In the next chapter we explore the multitude of barriers to higher education, noting that students currently under-represented in post-secondary studies are likely to encounter several of these obstacles. If we are to improve their enrolment and completion rates, we must ensure that all

also carry them through to graduation. The bottom line is that wider access and improved quality or greater academic excellence must not be seen as two separate objectives for Canada’s post-secondary institutions, but as two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, as further chapters illustrate, greater access and achievement cannot simply be willed into being. Expanding and improving the post-secondary

system will require comprehensive planning involving many actors. Fortunately, the resources to improve Canada’s post-secondary system currently exist and are not as scarce as they may be when the share of those over the age of 65 is higher than it is today. It is more prudent and easier to act now to enhance participation in higher education than to wait for enrolments to drop in the long run.

The Price of Knowledge
Access and Student Finance in Canada

Chapter 2

Barriers to Post-Secondary Education

2

33

Chapter 2

I. Introduction
Encouraging wider participation in post-secondary education in Canada is increasingly necessary in the context of both the global knowledge economy and an aging population. Canada must improve its educational performance by enrolling and graduating more individuals who are not already on the pathway to post-secondary studies, specifically those from low-income families, those from families with no history of higher education (or “first-generation” students) and those from Aboriginal communities. To do this, it is necessary to help these individuals overcome the barriers that prevent them from obtaining a post-secondary education. Barriers to access prevent students from enrolling in college or university studies. Barriers to persistence prevent the students who do enrol from completing their studies. Taken together, these barriers can be grouped into three areas: academics, finances, and interest and motivation. • Academic ability, measured by grades or standardized tests, is closely linked with postsecondary enrolment. High school graduates with “C” averages are about half as likely as those with “A” grades to pursue post-secondary studies within two years of graduation. • Finances play a substantial role. During the past 15 years, the cost of higher education in Canada has grown significantly. One-third of youth who do not pursue higher education cite their financial situation as an obstacle to further studies. • Youth who lack career focus, who are uninterested in school or who lack a network of support for post-secondary studies are less likely to complete a post-secondary education. The barrier most often cited by those who did not pursue postsecondary studies within two years of graduating high school is a combination of a lack of career focus or a lack of interest in higher education. These barriers must be considered together, and not in isolation from one another. Individuals who confront one set of obstacles are likely to encounter another. This raises the notion of interacting barriers, which is important for two reasons: it focuses attention on the scale of the challenge facing Canadian youth; and it reduces the risk that policymakers will get side-tracked in an unproductive either/or debate over whether “financial” or “nonfinancial” barriers are more important. The notion of interacting barriers also provides insight into the situation of specific groups of individuals who encounter multiple barriers to postsecondary education. Low-income youth, firstgeneration individuals and Aboriginal youth face a combination of barriers to higher education, and are, therefore, under-represented on post-secondary campuses. • At the university level, there are two youths from the highest-income families for every low-income student. Low-income youth are less likely to have savings for higher education, to discuss financing their studies with their parents and to report receiving sufficient information about postsecondary education. Additionally, low-income youth generally score lower on standardized tests and report lower high school grades than wealthier students. • Compared to the children of post-secondary graduates, first-generation youth are less likely to plan for higher education, to be convinced of its benefits or to have above average high school grades. They are more likely to put off postsecondary education after high school and those who do enrol are less likely to have access to financial support from family. • Aboriginal youth are substantially less likely to have completed high school than non-Aboriginal

individuals, particularly in Western Canada. In Manitoba, seven in ten on-reserve First Nations youth had not completed high school by age 24. In addition to the barriers discussed in detail in this chapter, Aboriginal Peoples face a number of unique obstacles, including incidences of real and perceived racism in the school system. There is considerable overlap, however, among these groups. First-generation youth are likely to grow up in families with few financial resources. Low-income youth may have parents whose earnings are restricted by their limited educational attainment. Aboriginal Peoples lack many of the resources common in non-Aboriginal families.

Specific interventions designed to alleviate a narrow set of barriers — by targeting one kind of barrier, such as academic ability — will be limited in their effectiveness because they leave the other sources of the problem untouched. Interconnected barriers need solutions that are wide in scope and that include elements of academic support, financial assistance, and the provision of information and encouragement. These solutions must be directed toward all those under-represented in higher education, not merely those who fit into a single easily defined group. Without a comprehensive approach to overcoming these barriers, it is unlikely that Canada will gain the post-secondary achievement necessary to chart a successful course in the 21st century.

35

Chapter 2

II. An Overview of Barriers to Access and Persistence
Barriers to Access
The second edition of The Price of Knowledge explored three broad types of barriers preventing youth from pursuing post-secondary education: academic; financial; and informational/motivational. Junor and Usher (2004) argue that academic barriers usually are the least important, affecting about one in ten of those who don’t go on to college or university. Financial barriers are far more significant, affecting between one in five and one in three of those who are unable to gain access to post-secondary education. However, the most important barriers to the pursuit of post-secondary education fall under the heading motivational/informational, which affects about one of every two persons who do not go on to higher education. Motivational or informational barriers arise either from lack of motivation among students to go further or from a lack of information about the importance, the advantages, and the cost of post-secondary education, as well as the alternatives available to finance it. Those affected by these kind of barriers often say that they do not pursue post-secondary education because they are not interested in doing so, or give no reason. (Junor and Usher infer that not giving a reason indicates lack of interest or motivation).
Table 2.II.1 — Reasons for Not Pursuing PSE After High School
Why did you choose not to take post-secondary education or training at this time?

Recent research appears to confirm this general pattern. A survey of former grade 12 students from the class of 2003 in four provinces (Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta1) shows that 33% of those who had not yet pursued postsecondary education cited financial reasons as the impediment, making this the most frequently cited barrier. Lack of interest or direction, however, seemed more important when taken together: 31% mentioned a lack of a career focus, 13% a lack of interest, and 38% mentioned at least one or the other.2 Academic issues (8%) were also mentioned, but by fewer respondents. Additionally, 20% cited employment opportunities as the reason.3

1. 2. 3.

An additional survey is being planned in British Columbia. Multiple responses to the question were permitted. These results resemble in their general pattern those derived from Statistics Canada’s 2002 Post-secondary Education Participation Survey, as reported by Finnie and Laporte, taking into account the different question wording and the fact that, in this case, the question did not allow for multiple responses. Finnie and Laporte note: “Of those who had not accessed PSE, only 17 per cent said this was primarily due to monetary factors. Most of those who gave monetary factors also said they had no student loan because they did not need one, suggesting that lack of affordability is not an important barrier to PSE. The greatest number instead cited a lack of interest (43 per cent), while others credited insufficient preparedness (17 per cent), an intention to go later (9 per cent) or other factors (19 per cent)” (Finnie and Laporte (b), 2).

The Pull of the Labour Market
Some argue that the desire to begin earning money right after high school should be classified as a financial barrier, since it is an indication of financial need. Others believe it speaks to a lack of information or motivation, since it is either evidence of a poor understanding of the importance of a post-secondary education for improving lifetime employment or earnings, or a fall-back answer given by those who don’t have an interest in staying in school. Both interpretations are plausible, but there is evidence to suggest that, for some youth at least, the key factor is not the “push” of financial need (i.e., the absence of funds with which to finance further studies) but the “pull” of labour market opportunities that promise shortterm economic gains. Evidence from the Class of 2003 project suggests that recent high school graduates in regions with booming economies are more susceptible to being lured away from pursuing post-secondary education and into the job market. The study compared the post-high school activity of students who were in twelfth grade in 2003 in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. A third of Albertans (34%) took time to work after high school and before pursuing post-secondary studies in the two years following graduation, compared with one-fifth (20%) of New Brunswickers. Moreover, 10% of Albertans who started postsecondary studies but dropped out to go to work did so because they were employed, compared to 5.9% of Saskatchewan students and only 2.3% of New Brunswick students. Finally, Albertans were almost twice as likely to say that they chose not to start post-secondary education at all because they wanted to work. As Figure 2.II.1 suggests, the reason that Albertans were more likely than New Brunswickers to work after high school or to discontinue studies to work appears to be because there are more employment opportunities there. Therefore, it needs to be recognized that in certain regions of the country, and at certain periods in an economic cycle, the argument that a post-secondary education is a prerequisite to a well-paying job will appear to ring less true, at least for certain young people contemplating their future. Recent evidence from Statistics Canada, for instance, notes that the long-term trend towards a widening earnings gap between those with and those without a post-secondary education has been muted since 2000. Since that time, the most substantial growth in the availability of jobs occurred among those requiring no postsecondary education (such as clerical work, retail,

construction, and mining). Between 2000 and 2004, jobs in the oil and gas sector, which exist primarily in Alberta and often do not require a higher education, grew by 43% while jobs in construction grew by 26%. This growth in employment mitigated the twenty-year downward trend for the earnings of men with low levels of education. In fact, between 2000 and 2005, the average earnings of young men without a post-secondary education rose while those of young men with a university degree decreased (Chung, 2006, 5–12). Accordingly, it is no surprise to find that, according to the Class of 2003

study, men are more likely than women to decide to work after high school and before starting a post-secondary education, or to decide either not to start post-secondary education at all or to discontinue studies in order to work. The problem is that, as Statistics Canada’s analysts argue, “earnings growth among less-educated workers is not expected to be sustainable since the recent increases appear to be a result of short-term fluctuations in demand, mainly due to the boom in oil and gas, mining and construction” (Chung, 2006, 12).

Data from the Secondary School Student Survey also testify to the importance of the same three types of barrier. Respondents were asked about the extent to which a series of factors posed a barrier to them in furthering their education beyond high school. One in three high school seniors (grades 9 to 12) said that none of the 13 factors mentioned posed a barrier. Barriers related to a lack of interest in further studies

or lack of career direction were cited as significant by 38%, barriers related to financial difficulties by 35%, and barriers related to poor marks in school by 25%.4 Among the top five of the 13 individual items, three were financial barriers, one was related to a lack of career direction, and one was related to poor marks in school (see Table 2.II.2).

Table 2.II.2 — High School Seniors’ Anticipated Barriers to Post-Secondary Education (% saying the item is a major or significant barrier)
High School Seniors Who Expect to Go to PSE but Plan to Work Right After HS

Barrier

High School Seniors

Not having enough money to pay for education and training Having to pay for higher living expenses to live away from home Poor school marks Not knowing what I really want to do Fear of going into debt Having to leave friends and family Lack of interest and motivation for further studies Want to start earning money in a full-time job Not knowing what types of jobs or careers are available Do not believe it will pay off in the long run Family obligations Parents don’t encourage it Friends don’t encourage it
Source: Prairie Research Associates, 2005.

31% 28% 26% 26% 25% 24% 17% 15% 15% 12% 9% 8% 6%

40% 35% 34% 31% 32% 26% 21% 23% 16% 15% 9% 8% 7%

4.

Barriers related to a lack of interest in further studies or lack of career direction included: not knowing what I really want to do; lack of interest and motivation for further studies; not knowing what types of jobs or careers are available; and, do not believe it will pay off in the long run. Barriers related to financial difficulties included: not having enough money to pay for education and training; having to pay for higher living expenses to live away from home; and, fear of going into debt. Barriers related to poor marks in school included that single item only.

The table also shows responses for high school seniors who are delaying their entry into postsecondary education (those who expect to gain a post-secondary education but say they plan to work right after high school instead of starting their further studies right away). These students are affected by exactly the same range of factors, though they are slightly more likely to say that each of these factors poses a significant barrier. It is interesting to compare the responses of high school seniors who expect to go to university with

those who do not expect to continue their studies after high school. Those who do not plan to pursue post-secondary studies are more likely to say that any given factor constitutes a barrier. But the factors most likely to be chosen as significant differ from those most likely to be chosen as major barriers by those who expect to go to university. While financial barriers seem most important for university-bound students, factors related to poor school marks or to a lack of interest or career direction tend to be most important for those not expecting to continue past

Figure 2.II.2 — High School Seniors’ Anticipated Barriers to Post-Secondary Education, by Highest Level of Education Expected
“To what extent does each of the following pose a barrier to you in furthering your education beyond high school?”

Poor school marks Not knowing what I really want to do Lack of interest and motivation for further studies Not having enough money to pay for education and training Fear of going into debt Having to pay for higher living expenses to live away from home Having to leave friends and family Want to start earning money in a full-time job Do not believe it will pay off in the long run Not knowing what types of jobs or careers are available Family obligations Friends don’t encourage it Parents don’t encourage it
7% 14% 5% 14% 7% 14%

high school. What’s more, university-bound students are only slightly less likely than those not expecting to study past high school to say that financial barriers pose a significant barrier; however, they are much less likely to say that factors related to lack of interest, career direction, or poor school marks pose significant barriers (see Figure 2.II.2). What sets these two groups of high school students apart is their differing perceptions of the significance of barriers related to academic performance, interest in further studies, and career direction. This is further evidence that policies to support students academically and provide them with better information about their choices after high school are as vital as effective student financial aid programs to any strategy to improve access to post-secondary education.5

Barriers to Persistence
One of the advantages of the Class of 2003 study is that it allows us to examine barriers from the perspective of both access and persistence — that is, to look at those who did not go on to post-secondary education, and at those who did pursue further studies but dropped out. Figure 2.II.3 suggests that “access barriers,” which impede potential students’

transition from high school to higher education are somewhat different in nature than “persistence barriers,” which pose obstacles to the completion of studies among current students. Specifically, those who did not pursue postsecondary studies after high school are most likely to cite financial issues (33%), lack of a career focus (31%), and employment opportunities (17%) as the reason. Lack of interest (13%), personal/family issues (11%) and academic issues (8%) were also mentioned, but by fewer respondents. The barriers to persistence, that is those more likely to be identified by post-secondary dropouts, are most likely to consist of lack of interest (29%) or the program not meeting expectations (27%). An additional 14% said they were undecided on their career. Taken together, reasons related to a lack of interest or satisfaction with their program, or a lack of direction in their career, were cited as the reason for discontinuing their studies by 52% of dropouts. Financial reasons were cited by one in five (22%) of those who discontinued studies while academic difficulties were cited by 12%. These findings on the reasons for discontinuing studies are in line with those derived from Statistics Canada’s Youth In Transition Survey (YITS). The YITS

Figure 2.II.3 — Top Barriers to Post-Secondary Education
“Why did you choose not to take post-secondary education or training at this time? / Why did you discontinue your program?”

Of course, we cannot say whether respondents will actually encounter the barriers they anticipate once they do finish high school, or whether they will follow the pathways they expect. This survey does not follow respondents as they progress from year to year. The research here deals with anticipated rather than actually encountered barriers to further education.

findings suggest that “among youth who had left postsecondary education without completing their program, the major reason cited related to a lack of program fit… Ultimately, a notable proportion of postsecondary leavers stated that they had done so either because they didn’t like their program or their program wasn’t ‘for them’ or because they were going to change programs or schools” (Lambert, et al., 2004, 19). Specifically, one-third of those who left their studies did so because they didn’t like their program, or did not feel it fit with their interests. Another nine percent left to change schools or programs. Financial reasons were the next most important reason: 11% of those who discontinued their studies did because they did not have enough money. The findings of the two different studies are compared in Table 2.II.3. The general pattern is similar, although the exact responses differ somewhat, likely for reasons relating to the wording of the question.6

Lack of interest/ lack of program fit/ lack of career direction Financial reasons (other than desire to work) Academic reasons Desire to work

52%

32%

23% 14% 11%

11% 6% 7%

Source: Malatest, 2007; Lambert et al., 2004

The importance of persistence, career planning, and choosing a program that fits with students’ interests is also underlined in a recent study of first-year college students conducted by Peter Dietsche on behalf of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and its partners. Dietsche reports that the less certain students feel about their career choices, the less likely they are to be comfortable with their programs of study. In fact, only 14% of students reporting low career certainty score highly on a program perception scale, compared with 61% of those with high career certainty. Similarly, the more hours students spent exploring career options prior to starting their college programs, the higher their degree of academic involvement while in college.7 This suggests that lack of career direction is a barrier to persistence in and of itself (in terms of, for instance, low motivation or interest in pursuing studies), but also a contributing factor to the effects of other barriers — for example, what Statistics Canada has described as a lack of program fit, and poor academic performance (Dietsche, 2007). This raises an important question: Is career planning adequate at the high school level before students are called upon to make choices about post-secondary education? This is a question that the Foundation has previously addressed in its research (see, for instance, Canadian Career Development Foundation, 2003), and is exploring further in the “Future to Discover” millennium pilot project currently underway in New Brunswick and Manitoba.8 The recent Class of 2003 study reinforces the sense that students often feel inadequately prepared for or informed about the post-secondary and career options available to them. Fewer than half of the graduates surveyed thought high school had provided them the necessary information to make good career choices (see Figure 2.II.4).

6.

Note that the Class of 2003 survey asks respondents whether any of a list of reasons applied to them. Multiple responses were accepted. The YITS survey asked respondents to identify the most important single reason. Multiple responses were not accepted. The wording of the individual reasons mentioned in the questions also differed. A full report of the Pan-Canadian Study of College Students, the College Experience and Determinants of Learning, conducted among 28,932 students in 102 institutions across Canada, is expected to be published by the Government of Canada in 2007. Descriptions of the millennium pilot projects are available on the Foundation’s website and in its 2005 annual report. For more information about “Future to Discover,” see also “Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation shares research that studies barriers to post-secondary education for Canadian students,” The CAP Journal, Volume 14, No. 2 (Spring 2006): 30–32.

Figure 2.II.4 — Adequate Preparation for PSE?
“Thinking back to your high school years, do you feel that high school provided you with adequate preparation for post-secondary education and work in the following areas?”

100%
20% 16% 35% 20% 19% 18% 64% 48% 47% 32% 18%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Received necessary Received information information to make to make good good career choices? PSE choices?
Source: Malatest, 2007.

No Partially Yes

63%

Developed study habits needed to pursue PSE?

Recieved academic preparation for PSE?

The Perception of Barriers
Studies that rely on the respondent’s own perception of barriers are inevitably problematic, as discussed by Junor and Usher in the previous edition of The Price of Knowledge. This is because survey respondents’ perceptions of the barriers they face depend to an important extent on their aspirations. A student from a middle-income family who wishes to move away from home to study at university may be more likely to say he or she faces a financial or academic barrier than a student from a low-income family who wishes to attend a local community college, even though the latter student is less well-prepared both financially and academically to make a successful transition to the post-secondary level. It is also important to note that many students who do not go on to post-secondary education after high school do not mention that any barriers stood in their way, making it difficult for researchers to explain their behaviour. While surveys remain the best tool available to researchers seeking to understand the reasons why young Canadians do or do not continue their studies, they are not without their limitations.

Having provided an overview of the different types of barriers, we will now delve into new research that relates to each of them in turn.

More About Academic Barriers
There is a clear and logical link between academic performance in high school and later participation in post-secondary education. For one thing, many postsecondary programs (university programs in particular but not exclusively) require good, if not excellent, grades for admission. In addition, while academic entrance requirements for many other programs are less stringent, students who did not perform well in high school may be reluctant to continue their studies, preferring to leave the academic environment to seek success in the labour market. For example, the Class of 2003 study shows that a majority of high school graduates with “A” and “B” grade averages had completed or were enrolled in post-secondary studies two years after high school. By contrast, only half (49%) of those with “C” grades and 45% of “D” students were enrolled in or had completed some form of higher education. While, overall, 18% of high school graduates listed academic barriers to post-secondary education, students with “D” averages were almost six times as likely to do so as those with “A” averages. As demonstrated in Figure 2.II.5, an average high school grade of 70% appears to mark an important threshold: the majority of those obtaining this grade pursue post-secondary studies.9 (It is also worth bearing in mind that the Class of 2003 project, by surveying only those who made it to grade 12, cannot report on those who drop out before reaching the end of high school.) This finding is consistent with that of Knighton and Bussière, whose results are described below. Figure 2.II.6 suggests that academic requirements were a greater barrier to those who never pursued or dropped out of post-secondary studies. Unlike comparisons based on self-reported academic grades, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test provides a thorough, consistent measure of a student’s reading proficiency level across international boundaries. Sixty-five per cent of Canadians who took the PISA test in 2000 at age 15 (and were no longer in high school at age 19) had enrolled in some form of post-secondary studies. The average PISA score of those who were not enrolled in advanced education at age 19 was one full proficiency level lower (there are five) than those who went on to post-secondary. As demonstrated in Figure 2.II.7, only 28% of those who scored at the lowest reading proficiency level were pursuing higher education, compared to 45% at level 2, 65% at level 3, 76% at level 4, and 88% at level 5. Moreover, youth who scored at the two lowest levels were more likely to drop out of high school, suggesting that level 3 may be an important threshold for the kind of participation in post-secondary education that will be needed to meet the demands described in Chapter 1. As

More About Financial Barriers
In The Price of Knowledge 2004, Junor and Usher differentiated among three kinds of financial barriers: price constraints, in which certain potential students consider the cost of a higher education not to be worth its outcome; cash constraints, which refer to those students who would like to continue their studies but cannot pay for it, either through savings, income or financial assistance; and debt aversion, referring to those unwilling to borrow to pay for their schooling. Junor and Usher (2004), along with Finnie and Laporte (b), have argued that neither debt aversion nor lack of access to sufficient funds through borrowing is the determining factor for most students. Rather, a sense that post-secondary education is not sufficiently important to justify the expense (either in terms of direct costs, or forgone income while in school) seems to be the crucial issue. As Finnie and Laporte conclude from their

analysis of the financial reasons given by those not participating in post-secondary education in Statistics Canada’s 2002 Post-Secondary Education Participation Survey (PEPS), “affordability was not the salient issue, leaving us to deduce that in the majority of cases the schooling must instead have been perceived as a not sufficiently worthwhile activity. ‘It costs too much’ (for example) must thus mean ‘it’s not worth it’ rather than ‘I can’t afford it’” (Finnie and Laporte (b), 26). The Class of 2003 project provides the most recent data on the typical financial barriers facing postsecondary age youth. The 33% of respondents who said they had not yet accessed post-secondary education for financial reasons, and the 22% of those who said they had dropped out of post-secondary education for financial reasons, were asked to state what type of financial barriers they faced. Interestingly, debt aversion appears to be the most important single financial obstacle to participation in post-secondary education, both among those who never went on after high school for financial reasons, as well as for those who dropped out for financial reasons. Lack of funds (cash constraint) was the next most important reason (see Figure 2.II.8). Relatively few stated outright that the reason for not pursuing

a post-secondary education was a conviction that its benefit was not worth the cost. A similar pattern can be seen in the responses to the Secondary School Student Survey. The onequarter of high school seniors surveyed who stated that they did not expect to continue their studies past high school, said that their sense that a postsecondary education would not pay off in the long run posed a barrier to continued studies. This is fewer, however, than the number who said they feared going into debt (33%) or that they did not have enough money to pay for education and training (34%). High school seniors not expected to seek post-secondary education are also more likely to agree that it is better to work to save money to pay for school than to take out student loans (indicating some debt aversion), and less likely to agree that they would be able to borrow enough money through student loan programs to pay for their education (indicating some sense of a cash constraint). Is this sufficient evidence that debt aversion and cash constraint are more important financial barriers than previously supposed?10 This is one possible interpretation. The difficulty of categorizing responses and evidence of one specific type of financial barrier, however, needs to be acknowledged. According to the

10. Regardless of the interpretation, it needs to be kept in mind that only about 2% of all respondents stated that their concern about too much debt was a reason why they did not access post-secondary studies after high school (22% did not access post-secondary education; of these; 33% cited financial issues; of these, 25% said they were concerned about accumulating too much debt).

Table 2.II.4 — Attitudes Toward Post-Secondary Education
“To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following?”

Strongly agree/agree

High school

Highest expected education Apprenticeship College

University

There are other benefits to post-secondary education besides preparing me for a job. I need a post-secondary education to get a good job. Paying the costs of post-secondary education is a good investment in my future. The benefits of a post-secondary education outweigh the drawbacks.
Source: Prairie Research Associates, 2005.

40% 33% 25% 17%

55% 55% 39% 28%

67% 72% 54% 34%

74% 78% 64% 45%

Class of 2003 study, while one in five students facing financial barriers said that they lacked funds, a similar proportion said that their preferred program was too expensive or that it was too expensive for them to leave home. It is impossible to say whether the latter responses are echoes of the same perceived lack of funds (the students in question wanted to pay for their program or wanted to pay to move to study, but lacked access to cash or loans), or whether they are instead evidence of an uncertainty that the investment ultimately would pay off (the program is too expensive in the sense that the cost is not seen to be worth the expected benefit). Similarly, those who say that they are concerned about too much debt may not so much be debt averse in an absolute sense, but reluctant to take the risk of borrowing in view of their doubts about the benefit of the education they might gain. The point here is not to minimize issues, such as debt aversion, through definitional exercises. It is legitimate, however, to try to assess the basis for the responses that students or potential students give in explaining their decision to seek or to abstain from further education. In this vein, it is useful to consider additional responses offered by senior high school students participating in the Secondary School Student Survey. Overall, only 12% of those surveyed disagreed that paying the costs of a post-secondary education is a good investment in their future; 12% also disagreed they needed a post-secondary education to get a good job (see Table 2.II.4). The degree

of agreement, however, is not strong: a thin majority (55%) agreed that paying for a post-secondary education is a good investment in a student’s future, including only 18% who strongly agreed (30% neither agreed nor disagreed). Agreement with these and other similar statements is much lower among those not planning to go to PSE: only 25% of these students say that paying the costs of a post-secondary education is a good investment in their future, and only 40% agree that a postsecondary education has other benefits besides preparing students for better jobs. Of course, these views may not so much drive the behaviour (the decision not to access post-secondary education) as rationalize it after the fact. Nonetheless, as the authors of the report on the study argue, “the level of agreement with these statements is somewhat surprising…The relatively low numbers of students who strongly agree with these statements suggests that for many students, their expectations about post-secondary education are not grounded in any strong evidence of its necessity. In other words, for many students, their post-secondary education is based on a general societal expectation (similar to the expectation that one day they will likely get married), rather than understanding and assessment of its benefits” (Prairie Research Associates, 2005, 62). It is conclusions such as these that point to the importance of providing students with good information about the costs and the benefits of post-secondary

education. In the absence of good information, assessments of costs relative to benefits may be faulty. The discussion of financial barriers to post-

secondary education therefore leads inevitably to discussion of the barrier posed by the quality of information that students possess.

Tuition as a Barrier to Access
Discussions of the financial barriers to higher education inevitably raise the issue of tuition. In the 2004 edition of Price of Knowledge, Junor and Usher argued that no strong evidence existed to suggest a direct relationship between tuition and aggregate participation in post-secondary education. Since enrolment has risen at the same time as tuition, and since Canadian provinces with high tuition also have high participation rates, they maintained that it cannot be the case that tuition on its own constitutes a primordial barrier to access. To say this, however, is not to say that tuition does not matter. New evidence reported in a paper by David Johnson and Fiona Rahman suggests that there is a statistically significant link between price (tuition costs as well as foregone income) and participation in post-secondary education. The authors estimate that a $1,000 annual increase in tuition fees reduces participation in higher education by about 1.3%. They take care to note that the evidence to demonstrate this relationship stems from a period of exceptional growth — both in university enrolment and average tuition fees. Because their work, and the work they reference, uses aggregate data, it is impossible to determine what impact tuition policy changes have had on certain kinds of students, including low-income students, first-generation students, immigrants, Aboriginal students and others (Johnson and Rahman, 2005). A 2005 report by Marc Frenette argues that the sudden deregulation of professional programs, such as law, medicine and dentistry, in Ontario in the late 1990s had a substantial impact on enrolment by socio-economic status (SES). In that case, enrolment increased among high- and low-SES students, and decreased among those in the middle. Frenette suggests that high-SES students could afford the increase in price, and low-SES students benefited from increased financial aid; medium-SES students, it seems, were caught in a cash crunch (Frenette, 2005b). This research indicates two things: first, while the “price constraint” represented by tuition may not be strong enough to impede the larger social trend to growing participation in post-secondary education, it can nonetheless deter some students who are at the margin of being able to afford to continue their studies; second, tuition increases affect some groups of students more than others. Neither of these conclusions, however, implies that tuition is necessarily the most important determinant of access, even for students with limited access to financial resources. A full understanding of the impact of tuition on access to higher education must take into account all the factors, financial and otherwise, in a student’s complex decision-making process. It is worth noting, however, that it is not uncommon for high school students to overestimate actual tuition fees by a factor of two to one (as described in the next section). The perceived amount, particularly when it is inflated, may drive home a message of unaffordability that is at least as great a barrier to access as the actual amount. The point here is not that tuition poses more of a psychological than a financial barrier to access but rather that, unlike other costs such as housing or transportation, tuition is a symbol, and its status as a deterrent to participation may be greater than its dollar value suggests. The issue of tuition will be discussed again in Chapter 3 in the context of an analysis of the costs that students face in participating in postsecondary education.

More About Information and Motivation
In Closing the Access Gap: Does Information Matter?, the Foundation compiled data from two surveys to explore post-secondary funding planning and preparation among high school students and their parents (see Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2006b). Among the findings cited were the following: • One-third of senior high school students who plan to continue their studies, including 20% of those in their final year, say they do not know how much their tuition will cost. • Of those high school seniors able to estimate the cost of tuition, a majority (60%) say it will be over $8,000 a year—about twice the actual cost at the time of the survey in the provinces where the survey was conducted.

• Only 14% of high school seniors who planned to borrow money to pay for their post-secondary education said they knew at least a fair amount about government student loan programs. • While 84% of parents have talked to their child about post-secondary education, only 38% discussed how they were preparing to help their child financially to meet the costs of further studies, and only 13% raised the subject of government student financial aid programs. In addition, as Figures 2.II.9 and 2.II.10 illustrate, both high school students and their parents are misinformed about funding the post-secondary education to which almost all aspire. Though a majority of students and parents expect the student to benefit from work income, scholarships, family support and government assistance, the reality is another story altogether.

The Class of 2003 study provides similar evidence regarding poor information. It finds that while Grade 12 students who did not go on to postsecondary studies were more likely than those who did to list financial issues as a barrier to postsecondary education, they were the least knowledgeable about student loans. A full 40% of those who did not pursue post-secondary education did not know how to apply for a student loan. It may well be that these students are unaware of financial aid programs because they have no interest in further studies and, therefore, no use for information about loans they have no intention of getting.11 At the same time, it may be that the lack of awareness simply compounds other doubts about the benefits relative to the costs of further study.

11. Similarly, Finnie and Laporte report that 48% of those who did not go to post-secondary education and who also did not apply for a loan said they did not know where to get information about government student loans. However, they also note that less than one percent of these respondents said the reason they did not apply for a student loan was because they did not know how, compared with 59% who said it was because they did not plan to continue their studies. See Finnie and Laporte, (b).

49

Chapter 2

III. Interacting Barriers
Much of this discussion, both in this chapter and in the research literature more generally, has focussed on differentiating the various barriers to accessing post-secondary education. While this is an important task, it should not obscure the fact that the different types of barriers often interact. Students whose parents did not go to college or university may be affected by their parents’ lower earnings or lack of encouragement, or by their own academic performance in high school. The different barriers to access thus frequently compound one another, making the challenges facing certain groups of youth that much greater. Initially, this can be demonstrated by considering the responses of senior high school students who participated in the Secondary School Students Survey. • Of those who said that poor school marks were a barrier to continuing their studies after high school, a majority also said they faced a financial barrier (68%) or a barrier related to their lack of interest in further studies or career direction (66%). • Similarly, of those who said that their lack of interest or career direction posed a barrier, two-thirds (67%) also said they faced a financial barrier, and almost half (45%) also faced an academic barrier. • Finally, a majority of those who faced a financial barrier also said that they faced a barrier related to lack of interest or career direction (54%), and over one-third faced a barrier related to poor school marks (38%). Another way of illustrating the compound effects of interacting barriers is to examine particular groups of students that are currently under-represented in post-secondary education. As the evidence presented below shows, students from low-income families, students whose parents did not obtain a postsecondary education and Aboriginal students tend to encounter multiple barriers to participation in continuing their studies.

Students From Low-Income Families
It is to be expected that students from low-income families are more likely to encounter financial barriers to access. They have fewer financial resources. Parents with higher income are more likely to save money for their children’s education, start saving earlier, and, ultimately, save more than those with lower incomes. The inevitable result is that students from lower-income families are much more likely to embark on post-secondary studies without any savings set aside than those from higher income families, as demonstrated in Figure 2.III.1 and 2.III.3. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, postsecondary students from lower-income families are much less likely to receive a financial contribution from their parents during the school year than those from higher-income families. Thus, as Figure 2.III.2 shows, lower-income students pursuing post-secondary studies inevitably are far more concerned about making ends meet. As Figure 2.III.4 demonstrates, their families are also less likely to discuss post-secondary preparations than higherincome families.

Obviously, lower-income families will have less money set aside for higher education and will have more difficulty paying post-secondary bills once the student is enrolled. Canada’s student financial aid programs exist to help lower-income families overcome the substantial cash constraint to higher education. What is both surprising and alarming, however, is the lack of awareness among low-income

students and their families about the student aid system and the options available to fund their postsecondary education. Lower-income college and university applicants are substantially more likely to report a desire for more information about the cost of education and existing student aid programs, as Figures 2.III.5 and 2.III.6 demonstrate.

Student financial assistance programs can only be effective if they are well known. While students from well-off families can adapt more easily to the costs of higher education, those from low-income households are less likely to overcome the significant financial barriers to higher education without a proper understanding of post-secondary education costs and knowledge of the options available to pay for it. The effects of financial barriers for low-income students are severely compounded by lack of access to sufficient information about higher education. In a nutshell: the very students identified in Chapter 1 as crucial to the necessary growth of Canada’s student population—and ultimately to the country’s competitive position in a global economy—lack not only the financial means, but, more importantly, the information and awareness to make the best decisions about higher education. Good student financial aid programs—programs that provide students with enough funds to pay for their education without amassing unmanageable levels of debt—must be supplemented by measures that encourage families to plan for higher education; and that provide them with sufficient information about paying for post-secondary studies so that they make wise decisions.

Low-income students are also more likely to face substantial academic barriers to post-secondary education. Academic achievement has a major impact on any admission decision, strongly shaping a young person’s post-high school trajectory. As demonstrated earlier, post-secondary enrolment is highly correlated with high school grades and literacy proficiency scores. As Junor and Usher demonstrated in 2004, however, academic scores and socioeconomic status also are correlated. Using PISA data, they determined that low-SES Canadian high school students may be as much as one full year behind their high-SES classmates. To conclude, there are several barriers to higher education and low-income students face all of them: • They are substantially less likely to have any savings set aside for education. • They have had fewer conversations about planning for post-secondary studies. • They are less aware of the cost of higher education and what is available through student aid programs, although they would like to know more. • They are less likely to have earned the grades needed to enter a post-secondary program.

Explaining the Gap in University Participation
Marc Frenette’s recent paper (Frenette, 2007), released by Statistics Canada after the text of this chapter was written, provides additional insight into the barriers to university education in Canada. Using data from the Youth in Transition Survey (YITS), Frenette attempts to explain why university attendance is correlated with family income. The YITS survey he examines offers rich data about family income at age 15, literacy scores from the Program for International Student Assessment, high school grades and high school quality, parental education and expectations, an individual’s perceptions of self-esteem and of mastery over one’s destiny, and peer influences. Frenette is also able to explore financial barriers by reporting on the likelihood that students who had university aspirations but had not enrolled by age 19 identified finances as an obstacle to university studies. The report concludes that barriers related to academic ability, high school quality and parental influence account for 84% of the university participation gap between low- and high-income youth. These findings echo those reported elsewhere in this chapter, and previously in research publications by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, that suggest issues related to academic abilities, motivation, information and expectations have a substantial impact on an individual’s educational pathway.
(Continued on page 54)

Explaining the Gap in University Participation (Continued from page 53)
It should be noted, however, that finances significantly fuel many of these “non-financial” barriers. Children who grow up in low-income families may not have as much access to books and museums, for example, or may be more likely to attend schools with fewer resources than wealthier kids. There is a need to better understand how a family’s financial resources affect the many factors that shape the educational pathway. Doing so can help nurture policy that assists lowincome youth to overcome these barriers. At the same time, we must not turn our attention away from the more direct financial barriers to higher education. While the YITS survey is comprehensive, it still may not capture all of the ways that finances affect the decision to pursue higher education, and cannot yet capture the influence on persistence. Even though Frenette explains the university participation gap between wealthy and low-income youth primarily through barriers not directly related to finance, it is dangerous to conclude that the only role finances play is indirect.12 Post-secondary education remains expensive and the opportunity costs can be high. Additionally, some students may be more affected by finances than others. Low-income youth are more likely to encounter all the barriers to post-secondary studies and, therefore, to skip post-secondary education. That ought to underscore the importance of understanding how a lack of financial resources contributes both directly and indirectly to all the barriers to post-secondary education in Canada.

First-Generation Students
In recent years, study after study has confirmed that those whose parents went to college or university are much more likely to seek a post-secondary education themselves. Now, growing attention is being paid to first-generation students, meaning those whose parents did not obtain a post-secondary education. The challenge facing first-generation students can be illustrated by examining how they are affected by the different barriers discussed in this chapter. As demonstrated in Figure 2.III.7, first generation students are more likely to decide to put off higher education, opting to work immediately following high school. The closer they are to high school graduation, the more they — unlike other students — seem to reconsider plans to pursue post-secondary education, suggesting that there are concrete factors that steer them off the pathway to higher education. As Figure 2.III.8 demonstrates, first-generation students are less likely to agree higher education is needed to get a good job, that paying for advanced schooling is a good investment and that there are benefits to post-secondary training beyond a good job. As discussed earlier, the decision to pursue higher education is often related to perceptions of cost versus benefit. First-generation students, by definition, have less exposure to college and university graduates. It comes as no surprise that they are more likely to be skeptical about the benefits of higher education.

12. It is also worth remembering that Frenette’s paper only looks at university participation, without regard to college. Furthermore, his data cannot indicate how much more significant financial barriers would be in the absence of the student financial assistance programs currently in place.

Figure 2.III.7 — High School Students Who Plan to Work Immediately After High School and Study Later, by Students’ Grade Level & Parental Education
40%
33%
No PSE Both parents college Both parents universities

30%
22% 23% 18% 13% 15% 11% 8% 10% 9% 11% 8% 10%

26%

20%

17% 16%

17%

18% 15%

10%

10% 8%

0%
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Source: Prairie Research Associates, 2005.

In terms of academic scores, first-generation students are far less likely than students whose parents studied at the college or university level to report “A” grades in high school, as demonstrated in Figure 2.III.9. Furthermore, 30% of high school students whose parents have no higher education

reported their poor school marks are a major or significant barrier to post-secondary education, compared with 22% of those with a college education in the family and 20% of those whose parents studied at the university level.

Figure 2.III.8 — High School Seniors’ Attitudes About Post-Secondary Education by Parental Education
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Need post-secondary to get good job Paying for post-secondary is a good investment There are other benefits to post-secondary besides a good job
48% 64% 76% 80% 65% 69% 61% 71% 76%

Figure 2.III.9 — High School Seniors With “A” Grades in Various Subjects, by Parental Education
50% 40% 30%
28% 34% 31% 28% No PSE College University 39% 36%

42%

41%

20%
18% 17%

10% 0% Math
Source: Prairie Research Associates, 2005.

16%

18%

Language

Science

Social Science

First-generation students also face greater financial obstacles. Students from the Class of 2003 whose parents did not attend post-secondary institutions rely more on student loans and less on family support to fund their education, as demonstrated in Table 2.III.1. Among applicants to Ontario colleges in 2006, first-generation students were less likely than their counterparts to have money set aside, either by themselves or their parents. Those who did have money set aside had saved 30% less than non-

Table 2.III.1 — Primary Source of Support for Those Currently Attending Post-Secondary
Parents have no post-secondary experience At least one parent has post-secondary experience

first-generation students, as demonstrated in Figure 2.III.10. Furthermore, high school students with no higher education in the family were more likely to report financial barriers as major or significant obstacles to post-secondary education, as seen in Figure 2.III.11. In summary, first-generation students face a combination of financial, academic, informational and motivational barriers to post-secondary education. As is the case for low-income students, the

effects of these barriers tend to compound one another. This points to the need for a comprehensive strategy to encourage first-generation students to access post-secondary education. As noted in Bob Rae’s report on post-secondary education in Ontario, “one of the strongest predictors of a student going on to postsecondary studies is if his or her parents went, too… [We need to develop] early outreach to students and ongoing supports to ensure success while they are enrolled.” (Rae, 2005, 12).

Aboriginal Students
Evidence from two Foundation reports, Class of 2003 and Changing Course: Improving Aboriginal Access to Post-Secondary Education in Canada, suggests that, among those who aspire to a post-secondary education, the goals of Aboriginal Peoples are not very different from those of non-Aboriginal Canadians.13 As Figure 2.III.12 indicates, Aboriginal peoples are slightly less likely than their nonAboriginal peers to aspire to a university education and are more likely to aspire to a certificate or diploma. The more substantial difference relates to the proportion of youth who report having postsecondary aspirations. Only 70% of First Nations, Inuit and Métis youth reported aspiring to a higher education, compared to 90% of non-Aboriginal youth. Aspirations aside, Aboriginal educational outcomes are significantly different from those of other youth in Canada. As we saw in Chapter 1, Aboriginal students are much less likely to complete high school and enrol in a post-secondary program. There clearly are significant barriers to higher education that affect Aboriginal youth. These are not necessarily different barriers than those faced by non-Aboriginal youth, but given that Aboriginal educational history

13. The term “Aboriginal” refers to First Nations Peoples, Inuit and Métis Peoples.

in Canada is marked by abuse and forced assimilation, it is likely that they are felt in unique ways: • Inadequate financial resources. • Poor academic performance. • Lack of self-confidence and motivation. • Absence of role models who have post-secondary education experience. • Lack of understanding of Aboriginal culture on campus. • Experience of racism on campus. A 2005 poll of on-reserve Aboriginal Canadians, conducted for the Foundation by Ekos Research Associates, further explores the barriers they face. As discussed in Changing Course, finances, academic preparation, and alienation are prominent barriers to post-secondary education for Aboriginal Peoples.

The barriers Aboriginal students face are similar to those confronting low-income and first-generation Canadians. Still, the Aboriginal experience in Canada is substantially different than that of nonAboriginal citizens, especially on First Nations reserves. As Michael Mendelson points out in his recent report on Aboriginal education in Canada, particularly in Western and Northern Canada, discussing improving Aboriginal educational outcomes at the post-secondary level may be putting the cart before the horse. As Figure 2.III.15 demonstrates, a majority of 20- to 24-year-old Aboriginal Peoples living on reserve have not completed high school. Mendelson underscores the importance of enabling success at the secondary level as a crucial first step toward improving access to post-secondary education for Aboriginal Peoples (Mendelson, 2006). Alarmingly, the provinces with the largest Aboriginal share of the population, Manitoba and

Saskatchewan, graduate the smallest proportion of on-reserve high school students. Mendelson raises important questions about the consequences. In light of growing Aboriginal youth populations in Western Canada, consider the implications for western Canadian society of a growing portion of the population that consistently lags behind in education. It is likely that Aboriginal youth who do not complete high school, let alone some form of higher education, are destined to suffer from lifelong

poverty. Given the forthcoming population shift, the social implications of a growing educational attainment gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth are serious. They are likely to include increased social division, economic dependence based more and more on origin, and anger and resentment. The challenges faced by Aboriginal youth affect all Canadians; they can only be met effectively through a concerted national effort to help Aboriginal youth catch up.

IV. Conclusion
Chapter 1 argued that Canada must enrol increasing numbers of low-income youth, individuals with no family history of higher education and Aboriginal Peoples in post-secondary studies. This chapter described the complex, interacting barriers to higher education that these individuals face. These barriers can be grouped into three general areas: academic barriers, financial barriers, and barriers related to information and motivation. Those not well-represented on post-secondary campuses are likely to face a combination of all three kinds of barriers. The key to improving access to higher education among these individuals, then, lies in enabling them to overcome the substantial barriers they face. Doing so will not only improve the opportunities available to them, but will help improve Canadian society, which increasingly requires a high level of skills attainment among its population to ensure its continued prosperity. Helping these Canadians overcome the barriers to higher education can begin with two important steps: financial barriers, which can be addressed by financial assistance programs, there is no “last minute” way to alleviate obstacles related to interest, motivation and academics. Solutions, then, must be directed to students much earlier in their educational career. We can start by stressing the importance of education as a continuum — ideally, the transition from high school should be as seamless as that between elementary and secondary school. Greater coordination within the education sector, among high schools, universities, colleges, professors, teachers and government departments (which often are split into K-12 and post-secondary) is essential to making higher education a viable option for every Canadian child.

Ensure that efforts to eliminate the barriers to post-secondary education are comprehensive
Efforts to remove obstacles to higher education must, when taken together, form a broad mechanism of support for post-secondary education. Only in this way can the compound effects of interaction between barriers to higher education be addressed effectively. A scattershot approach (dealing with cost here, academics there) will have a more limited impact. The individuals who face barriers do not necessarily distinguish between or compartmentalize them. Solutions that take a comprehensive approach have a greater chance of success because they negate the larger effect the barriers to post-secondary education can have when they are compounded.

Reorient our attitudes toward the educational system
Of special interest in this chapter are findings that highlight the importance of barriers related to motivation, self-confidence and academic achievement — barriers that go well beyond the financial issues that often come to mind first when considering why individuals do not pursue higher education (especially university, because of its cost). Unlike

The Price of Knowledge
Access and Student Finance in Canada

Chapter 3

Student Costs and Resources

3

65

Chapter 3

I. Introduction
Overcoming the initial barriers to access is only the first of many challenges post-secondary students will face before obtaining their degree, diploma or certificate. Throughout their years of study, students must find ways to make financial ends meet, covering the costs of tuition, books and materials, room and board, and countless other items. The first education-related bills typically come due before classes begin; in the case of students who must borrow, the last bills are not paid off until long after graduation. In meeting their financial obligations, students must find a way to strike a balance between studying and maintaining satisfactory standing in their program on the one hand and part-time work and family obligations on the other. Federal and provincial student financial assistance programs are an important source of income for students. The purpose of these programs is to help ensure that qualified students do not have to forgo or discontinue their studies for financial reasons. In order to know whether these programs are effective, however, we need to develop a more complete picture of students’ financial circumstances, the extent of the costs they face and the sources and amounts of income at their disposal. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on the expenses and sources of income of a typical student during a year of post-secondary study. We are interested in two specific questions: “what are the financial circumstances of students while they are in postsecondary education?” and “how are students making ends meet?” In answering these questions, this chapter will look more closely at the way the student financial aid system comes into play. It will be shown that, despite support from families and efforts to save money by working before or during their studies, students need help to make ends meet. Student financial assistance programs provide this help, enabling many students to cover their costs. While these programs are effective in this basic sense, however, there remain a number of questions about them—and about student finance more generally—that have yet to be fully answered. These include questions about the precise distribution of loans and grants among students from different backgrounds, the extent to which parents can contribute or are contributing the expected amounts to their children’s education and whether the hours students must work are such that they hinder their academic success. This chapter will present evidence on these issues, laying some groundwork both for the discussion of government spending on student assistance which follows in Chapter 4 and, more generally, for the ongoing debate about how the student financial assistance system can best be modernized.

Defining the Cost of Post-Secondary Education
It is important to establish that, in this chapter, we are looking at what students need to pull out of their pockets in order to make it through a full academic year. This includes tuition, other fees and living expenses. We are not looking at the opportunity cost—that is, what students need to give up in order to pursue their studies (e.g., forgone earnings). Nor do we consider the net costs of post-secondary education, the calculation of which takes into account the effect of education tax credits (see Usher, 2006). While tax credits can considerably lower the overall cost of obtaining a degree, this cost reduction may only benefit the student after the bills come due, sometimes even after graduation. A more detailed examination of education tax credits is provided in Chapter 4. Another significant cost related to postsecondary education not covered in this chapter is the interest on student loans. Debt repayment can become a significant burden for graduates. Student debt issues are the focus of Chapter 5.

In Canada, full-time students needed $14,500, on average, to cover their expenses for a full year of study in 2003–04.2 As Figure 3.II.1 shows, this amount includes tuition, other education-related costs and living expenses. For a typical full-time student, tuition accounts for 31% of annual education-related expenditures. This is a significant amount; a student spends about the same amount on accommodation and food for the year. How do costs differ for different types of students? Given that tuition varies by province and by type of institution, as do students’ living choices, one would expect the share of each item to vary depending on students’ circumstances. Figures 3.II.2 to 3.II.3 illustrate the distribution of different budget items by student type.

Figure 3.II.2 — Distribution of Expenditures for Full-Time College Students
16% 21% 10%

Figure 3.II.3 — Distribution of Expenditures for Full-Time University Students
13% 33% 8%

We chose to start our discussion with costs such as tuition and other related fees, since the need to cover these costs is a distinguishing trait of being a student. Unless otherwise noted, all data in this chapter come from the Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey 2003–04. In order to simplify the discussion, we chose to restrict the analysis of costs and income sources to full-time students in college or undergraduate programs. A summary of the costs and income sources for part-time students is presented separately.

Total expenditures for a full-time college student were $11,500 in 2003–04, compared with $16,000 for a full-time university student. College students tend to spend less on tuition than university students, both as a share of total expenditures and in absolute terms. While 21% of a college student’s expenditures go directly to tuition, this rises to 33% for a university student. Living costs vary greatly depending on where a student lives. There is a difference between rural and urban locations, and even among urban centres. Rent in Toronto or Vancouver, for example, tends to be higher than in Montreal. Students can also adopt different living arrangements, which will have implications on the overall distribution of expenditures. As shown in Figure 3.II.4 expenditures vary greatly, depending on whether the student is dependent or independent. They can also differ for dependent students who live at home and those who live away from home.

Not surprisingly, expenditures are lowest for post-secondary students who live at home, as their living costs are minimal. Accommodation and food represent about 9% of all costs for these students, reflecting a significant (non-monetary) parental contribution. Students living at home, who on average are younger than other students, also tend to enrol in programs with lower tuition fees. Interestingly, dependent students living away from home incur higher expenses ($17,400) than independent single students without children ($15,100). A closer look at budgets for each reveals that students in each category make different choices. As shown in Figure 3.II.4, independent students tend to enrol in programs with lower tuition fees than do dependent students away from home. Independent students who are single and have no children also incur lower expenses for accommodation. They will, however, spend more on transportation (almost twice as much as dependent students), suggesting that independent students are more likely to live a little farther away from school than dependent students.

CHAPTER 3 — STUDENT COSTS AND RESOURCES

69

Evolution of Tuition and Ancillary Fees in Canada
Students attending an undergraduate university program in 2006–07 pay an average tuition of $4,347 and ancillary fees of $619. If they are returning students, this means that they saw, on average, a 3.2% increase in tuition fees and a 4% increase in ancillary fees compared with 2005–06. This reflects a trend which has continued since the early 2000s; during this period, the rate of tuition increase has been much slower than it was in the 1990s (for a detailed discussion of tuition fees, see Junor and Usher, 2004, and Usher, 2006). In fact, between 2004–05 and 2005–06, tuition fees only increased by an average of 1.8% in Canada, the lowest increase since 1978 (Statistics Canada, 2006). This contrasts sharply with the previous decade. Between 1990 and 1999, undergraduate university students saw increases in tuition of more than 8% per year, and in some cases it increased by more than 10%. Taken together over 15 years, these increases mean that, on average, students in 2005–06 paid three times as much as students in 1990–91 for tuition. That rate of increase was much greater than the inflation rate for the same period. This has had a major impact on students: making ends meet for many has meant assuming a greater debt load or working more. The most recent data on college tuition and ancillary fees date back to 2003–04. As reported in the 2004 edition of The Price of Knowledge, the variation in the cost of attending college follows a similar pattern to changes in undergraduate costs.

Note: Consumer Price Index annualized by taking averages from September to August. Source: Statistics Canada, The Daily, September 1, 2006.

71

Chapter 3

III. Sources of Financial Support
How do students cover the different expenses mentioned above? Figure 3.III.1 reveals that students rely on a number of different sources to obtain an average income of $14,500. Relying on (if not “juggling”) multiple sources of revenue is a distinguishing feature of student life in comparison to that of a full-time worker whose job is the main, if not the sole, income source. Using data from the Post-Secondary Education Participation Survey (PEPS), Ouellette (2006) reports that only 7% of full-time students aged 18 to 24 (17 to 24 in Quebec) rely on one source. Close to two-thirds of students rely on three sources or more. For a full-time student, employment accounts, at most, for 30% of income in a given year. Although it represents the largest share, the average employment income a working student will make during the year ($4,650) barely covers the average cost of tuition and ancillary fees. Thus, other sources of financial support must be found. Overall, the second largest source of income for full-time students is government student loans, representing about one-fifth of total income.3 For those who borrow, government loans represent an important amount of financial support—about $7,500, on average. As is the case with expenditures, a student’s particular circumstances will affect both the distribution of different income sources and the total amount of income he or she has for the academic year. Figures 3.III.2 and 3.III.3 present the cases of university and college students. The average income for college students ($12,000) is lower than that for university students ($17,000), although the distribution of sources of income barely differs.
Figure 3.III.1 — Distribution of Financial Support Sources for Full-Time Students
9% 5% 6% 27%
Employment Government loan Savings/investment Parents Private loan Bursaries Grants Other

7%

12% 19% 15%

Source: Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey 2003–04.

University students seem to receive a slightly greater share of their income from parental contributions and from other grants than do college students. For college students, the share of income from government assistance other than student financial assistance and from other sources of income, such as child support, is greater. A comparison of each individual source of income, excluding all those who reported no income from that source, clarifies the picture. On average, college students receive less from each source of income in comparison to university students, except for “other financial support” (which includes government assistance such as social assistance). A college student declaring some “other government assistance” or “other financial support” receives on average $3,000 and $1,000 respectively from these sources; for a

3.

The amounts and proportions reported here may vary slightly from those reported by Ouellette (2006). The main reason for these minimal differences may be attributable to the different methodologies used by the surveys: the Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey (CPSFS) interviewed students on a monthly basis whereas the PEPS surveys students once. Also the CPSFS covered students without any age restrictions in the 2003–04 academic year, while PEPS covered students aged 18 to 24 in 2001–02.

university student, the figures are $1,360 and $700. The difference between university and college students holds true even if one compares medians instead of means. This shows that, even among fulltime students, students attending college are facing different circumstances than are university students. Amounts and distribution of income also vary according to the status of the student. Dependent students living at home report the lowest average

income ($10,900). Dependent students living away from home report incomes of $17,400, while independent students report $19,500. For dependent students living at home, income comes principally from employment (40%). Parental monetary contributions are the second most important source but, at 14%, fall far behind employment.4 As with independent students, the main sources of income for dependent students living away from home

Figure 3.III.4 — Sources of Income for Full-Time Students by Living Arrangement
40%
Dependent at home Dependent away Independent

There are no data that enable us to quantify non-monetary contributions from parents, but it is likely that if they were taken into account, the distribution of income sources would be very different and would more closely resemble that of a dependent student living away from his or her parental home.

CHAPTER 3 — STUDENT COSTS AND RESOURCES

73

are employment and government loans, each representing about 20% of income. In the case of dependent students living away from home, it is not surprising that parental contributions are their third most important source of revenue, accounting for 18% of income. This is slightly more than twice what independent students receive. As shown in Figure 3.III.4, the amounts in particular categories again vary greatly (excluding those who declared no income in each case). This shows

that the characteristics of students in each group vary and produce different behaviour. For example, average employment income for independent students who work is $5,131. This is $1,200 more than the amount earned by a dependent student who works. The difference can largely be explained by the fact that independent students tend to be older and are less likely to rely on family for support, suggesting that they work more than dependent students.

Financial Support and Expenditures for Part-Time Students
Given their status, part-time students face lower educational costs than full-time students for a given academic year. The average tuition paid by parttime students in 2003–04 was $2,424. As seen in Figures 3.III.5 and 3.III.6, tuition fees only represent 14% of their total expenditures for a year. In general, part-time students work a full schedule while pursuing studies. This explains the large share of their income (61%) derived from employment. The majority of part-time students surveyed (70%) would prefer to study full-time. The survey did not ask students why they studied on a part-time basis, but the reasons are quite likely financial: part-time students are more likely to be from lower income family backgrounds and to have to care for children or dependants. There are also work-related reasons. When asked the primary reason for working during the school year, 16% of part-time students said it was to “maintain/secure an ongoing position in job.” In comparison, this was cited by only 4% of fulltime students.

Figure 3.III.5 — Distribution of Financial Support Sources for Part-Time Students
10%

Differences Across Provinces and Regions
Students’ financial circumstances differ depending on where they choose to live and study. This is not only because tuition costs vary from province to province. Provincial student assistance programs, student employment opportunities, the cost of living and even family income vary as well. The differences affect not only the overall costs that students face but also their ability to raise the income needed to fund their studies. Students in Alberta and Nova Scotia face the highest costs, but for different reasons. Students in Nova Scotia pay the highest tuition and fees, while Alberta students face higher living costs (including items such as accommodation, food and transportation). Students in Quebec and Manitoba have the lowest costs, not only because their tuition is lowest but also because they pay the least for accommodation and food. Employment is the biggest source of income for all students except those in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In these two provinces, perhaps because of labour market conditions, government assistance is the most important source of funds. Students in Nova Scotia face a particular challenge, for, while they face the highest costs, they earn the least income through employment. Conversely, the relatively high costs faced by students in Alberta and B.C. are offset in part by the opportunities afforded by their labour markets. Manitoba students are in a favourable situation, since they face lower educational and living costs yet also enjoy relatively high employment incomes. This combination results in these students relying the least on government assistance. Quebec students, for their part, obtain the least amount of income from savings and family support.

Table 3.III.1 — Monthly Income by Province
Total Employment Government Savings Family Private Other

Note: The category averages exclude respondents who did not report income or expenditures in that category. For this reason, the sum of the averages for all items in each row does not add up to the total of that row. Source: Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey 2003-04.

75

Chapter 3

IV. The Bottom Line: Expenditures and Income
Overall, how do full-time students fare? It should not be surprising that students are not able to save money while in post-secondary studies. This makes sense, since students are making an investment in themselves that they hope will yield positive returns after graduation. Table 3.IV.1 summarizes the average costs and expenditures for the types of students discussed above. Independent students appear to do better than the others as, on average, they report the greatest “surplus” for the year. Figures 3.IV.1 and 3.IV.2 offer a different perspective on income and expenditures by showing the
Table 3.IV.1 — Average Expenditures and Costs 2003–04
Average Expenditures Average Income

All full-time students College University Dependent, at home Dependent, away from home Independent (single with no children)

Figure 3.IV.2 — Total Income, Expense and Balance Over the Year (After Borrowing)
$4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 -$500 Baseline September October November December January
Source: Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey 2003–04. Total income Total expenditure Balance

February

March

monthly balance over the year, both before and after borrowing. As discussed in EKOS (2006), before borrowing is taken into account, students face a number of pressure points during the year when need exceeds resources. This is particularly true in September and January, typically times when tuition for the term must be paid. Once borrowing is taken into account, students’ situations look better, as they manage to achieve a small surplus in some months. This underlines the importance of student financial assistance in enabling students to cover their costs.

The figures also highlight the irregular income and expenditure flows that students face. One difficulty of student budgeting is managing money wisely to make it last until the end of the term or the year. At the start of the year, students will have a large sum of money on hand to cover different costs. However, these costs are spread irregularly through the year, with spikes in spending in September and January to cover fall and winter tuition. Understandably, given these patterns, it can be difficult for students to budget accurately.

Managing Expectations
Do students have a good picture of what their studies will cost them? Do their expectations of the amounts they will receive to cover costs match the reality? Data seem to indicate that even once they are pursuing post-secondary education, students have difficulty forecasting their financial bottom line. At the beginning of the year, for instance, students taking part in the Canadian PostSecondary Student Financial Survey 2003–04 stated that the amounts they thought they would receive were less than what they had expected prior to starting the year.
(Continued on page 77)

CHAPTER 3 — STUDENT COSTS AND RESOURCES

77

Managing Expectations (Continued from page 76)
These unfulfilled expectations stress the importance of budgeting. Students must budget carefully if they are to make it to the end of the year. But are they doing so? Data from the 2006 College Student Survey suggest that a majority are following some kind of budget: 32% of full-time students said they followed a budget, and 55% said they “somewhat” followed a budget. If budgeting is based on shaky expectations about costs or revenues, however, students will inevitably run into trouble. This implies a potential problem in terms of information about post-secondary financing and costs. The Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey asked what information students would have liked to have concerning finances. Only 9% of all students thought that they had received enough information. The other 91% would have liked more information on grants, the cost of education and sources of loans (see Table 3.IV.2). This does not mean that there is a lack of available information. Most, if not all, institutions
Table 3.IV.2 — Type of Information Students Would Have Liked to Receive
Information Regarding... Proportion

Note: The sum is greater than 100%, as multiple responses were allowed.

have pages on their websites that provide basic and sometimes detailed financial information. It is possible, however, that this is not the best way to deliver information or that students do not get such information at an opportune time for planning purposes.

79

Chapter 3

V. Education Financing and Family Characteristics
As Chapter 2 showed, students from low-income families or whose parents did not go to post-secondary education are less likely, on average, to pursue postsecondary education. This is not the case for all students in these circumstances, of course: some do go on to obtain a degree. In this section, we will focus our attention on how these students, particularly lowincome ones, having overcome the obstacles to access, manage to make ends meet. There is strong evidence that “choices” in terms of post-secondary education (type of institution and program, living arrangements, etc.) differ widely by income group or by other characteristics. For example, when they do go on to post-secondary education, lower income students are more likely to choose to go to college, leading to a relatively even distribution of college students (as opposed to those in university) in terms of family income. These choices result in different patterns of spending and reliance on sources of income to get through the academic year. Looking solely at the cost of programs, Ouellette (2006) corroborates this observation by showing that low-income students are more likely to enrol in less expensive programs, compared with other income groups. Aside from the type of institution, students from the lowest family income quartile are more likely to pursue part-time studies than are other students: according to the Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey 2003–04, about one in five students in the lower quartiles studied part-time, compared to about one in ten students in the higher quartiles. Part-time students pay lower educational fees in a given academic year, so this may be a strategy to reduce annual expenses related to post-secondary education; however, it has important implications, such as increasing the time needed to complete a degree. Based on these observations, the question of student loan eligibility becomes an interesting one. On the one hand, among students with similar levels of assessed need, low-income students are more likely to qualify for financial assistance in the form of loans and grants from the government because of their family circumstances. Consequently, we would expect government loans to represent a greater share of income for low-income students. On the other hand, a low-income student is more likely to go to college, in which case his or her assessed need would be less than it would be if he or she attended university (where tuition is typically higher), thus reducing the total amount of financial aid received. The amount of grant or bursary a student receives is also linked to the amount of their loan. A student will receive a grant if he or she is among those students with the highest need (and therefore the largest loans).5 Finally, part-time students are eligible to receive government financial aid, but these loans are not subsidized, meaning students must pay interest while in school.6 These are only a few of the considerations that need to be taken into account when thinking about whether the student financial aid system is effective at delivering the right kinds of support to the students who need it most.

5. 6.

This was the case until 2005–06, when the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the Government of Canada and some provincial governments introduced access bursaries for students from low-income families. These bursaries are discussed later in this chapter. For more information on part-time studies loans see: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/hip/cslp/publications/08–pu–Part-timeCSLPGuide.pdf

Who Borrows?
Using data from the Post-Secondary Education Participation Survey, Finnie and Laporte (b) broke down the distribution of students’ borrowing sources by family income quartile. In 2001–02, about one in three students with family income below $50,000 had a government loan. A much smaller share of students with family income between $50,000 and $100,000 were in this situation. Lower income students rely less on private loans than do students from higher income quartiles. Three hypotheses may explain this difference: lower income students may get good support in the form of not only loans but also bursaries and grants; given their financial situation, they may have greater difficulty in getting private loans; or, as discussed above, lower income students may make choices that reduce their overall costs. The reliance on private loans raises the question of whether government student loan programs are adequately addressing the needs of students. While it is difficult to give a definite answer to this question, Finnie and Laporte (b) are able to shed some light on it, as PEPS asked respondents if they would have liked to borrow more from public loans. Students who said they would have liked to borrow more from government loans were twice as likely to have also turned to private loans than were those who said their government loan was sufficient. This suggests that private loans are filling a need not covered by government student loan programs. Since PEPS was conducted, however, government student loan programs have become more generous (see Chapter 4); it remains to be seen whether this will result in a drop in borrowing from private sources.

Table 3.V.1 — Proportion of Full-Time Students With Loans from Different Sources by Family Income and Level of Parental Education
Family Income Government Loan Private Loan Parental Loan

Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000
Parental Education

28% 35% 14% 16%
Government Loan

8% 13% 14% 16%
Private Loan

13% 15% 18% 23%
Parental Loan

Less than high school High school completed Some or completed college Some or completed university
Source: Finnie and Laporte (a)

29% 27% 26% 19%

11% 19% 16% 12%

22% 10% 15% 19%

CHAPTER 3 — STUDENT COSTS AND RESOURCES

81

A Middle-Income Crunch?
Any social program designed to target individuals with specific characteristics (such as financial need) can create difficult situations for those individuals who just miss the eligibility cut-off. This is particularly true for programs where eligibility is based on income. While a person with an income of $X will be eligible for the program, a person with an income one dollar greater will not be, if $X is the cut-off point. This type of situation can arise within the student financial aid system. In some instances, students from middle-income families are viewed as too well off to have access to student financial aid, even though they have far less income than students in higher income brackets. Students who do not have access to student financial assistance but who must devote a much greater share of their family income to pay for their studies than students from higher income families are caught in what has been described as “the middle-income crunch.” There is some evidence that, when it comes to accessing higher education, middle-income students are in fact caught in such a situation. Table 3.V.1 indicates that students from the second and third family income quartiles are more likely to rely on private loans than are those from lower or higher income families. While we cannot be certain that these students would have liked to borrow more from public sources, or were actually denied student loans, Finnie and Laporte (b) conclude that the fact that students are turning to private borrowing probably indicates that students have a financial need that government student assistance programs are not meeting. Other data presented in this chapter support the hypothesis of the middle-income crunch. For example, students from middle-income quintiles were more likely to declare some employment income during the year, despite not having expected to work. As discussed below, this could be the result of an unexpected job opportunity, but it could also be due to these students encountering costs that were higher than expected or obtaining funding that was lower than anticipated. On the other hand, education tax credits and other savings instruments are likely to benefit middle-income families more than lowerincome ones. Overall, in light of the recent changes to student financial aid systems discussed in Chapter 4, it will be important to continue monitoring middleincome families’ participation in higher education and their means of financing it.

Who Works?
As shown earlier, employment is an important source of income for many students. It provides the greatest amount of income and covers a greater share of the cost of studies than any other income source. Despite its importance in a student’s life, very little is known about the effect of employment during the school year on participation and persistence. In fact, most studies on students and work have looked at high school students rather than post-secondary students. One of the most recent, by Bushnik (2003), reveals that while a certain amount of work (up to 20 hours per week) is positively associated with finishing high school, working more than 20 hours per week increases the chances of dropping out. This study points out that, in fact, the relevant question to ask is not “is working while in school a good thing?” but rather “how many hours of work will have a negative or positive impact on post-secondary education outcomes?”

It is likely that the same yardstick could be applied to post-secondary students. Employment will provide income to cover part of the costs of a school year. Some kind of employment, especially when the economy is good, is probably one of the easiest ways to make ends meet while gaining experience that could smooth the transition between school and the labour market after graduation. But there can be drawbacks. If the work load is too demanding, students may be forced to reduce their course load and extend the time it will take to complete their degree. In a booming economy, a full-time job could lure students away from studies (see Chapter 2), ultimately increasing the risk of not completing a diploma. Work could also be associated with lower grades.7 Statistics Canada (2006f) reports that almost half of full-time students aged 18 to 24 worked during the 2004–05 academic year.8 Female students were more likely than males to work during the school year, probably due to a good economic performance in sectors where female students are more likely to work (e.g., retail, accommodation and food services). Employment rates also vary regionally depending on the local economy. In terms of wages, 18- to-24-year-old students combining work and full-time studies earned an average of $9.60 an hour in 2004–05 (Statistics Canada, 2006). This corresponds to about 33% more than the average minimum wage in Canada, indicating that while some students are not earning much more than minimum wage,9 others are doing better.10 Overall, students in this age group (18 to 24 years old) have only seen a small gain in hourly wages since 1997–98: about 2.1%, after adjusting for inflation. As explained by Usalcas and Bowlby (2006), students did, however, end up with more employment income, as the number of hours worked during the week increased during that period. Nevertheless, the 6.4% increase in what students earned each week

between 1997–98 and 2004–05 was far behind the rise in tuition fees over the same period. The Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey looked at students who were not planning to work during the school year but who nonetheless ended up declaring some employment income. Table 3.V.2 presents selected characteristics of these students. The probability of students who had not planned to work ultimately declaring employment income did not vary by gender or, more interestingly, by parental education. Students whose family income was in the third and fourth quintiles, however, were more likely than those in the other income quintiles to end up working despite having planned the contrary. For example, close to two out of three students in the third income quintile declared employment income, compared with two out of five for the overall sample. Similarly, students who received parental contributions were more likely than those who did not to declare some employment income. Students who had a loan, whether private or public, were less likely to declare employment income later in the academic year. The proportion for students with a loan from the government is particularly low (35%). This is not too surprising, due to the “claw-back” incorporated in most student financial aid programs. For example, a student who receives financial assistance will receive less if she or he works and reports earnings beyond a certain threshold. While the claw-back reduces the incentive to work, it could also be argued that students receiving government financial assistance are in a better position financially, which means they do not have to rely on work to make ends meet. Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to determine exactly why these students started working. The reasons probably vary. For example, a student could have been presented with working opportunities he or she had not expected, such as a professor offering some work in a lab. It is also

7.

Using U.S. data, Kalenkoski and Pabilonia (2004) found that the number of hours worked has no effect on a college student’s GPA. The authors warn, however, that although no detrimental effect was found, their results have some limitations, as they only reflect the experience of first-term college students. The Canadian Post-Secondary Student Financial Survey 2003–04 reports a somewhat higher figure: every month of the academic year, about 60% of full-time students in the survey reported some employment income. Overall, three of every four full-time students in the sample had some employment income for the 2003–04 academic year. The minimum wage is set by each province. In 2004, it ranged from $5.90 (Alberta) to $8.00 (British Columbia).

8.

9.

10. It is interesting to note, however, that there is some evidence that students from higher income families who work tend to earn higher wages than students from lower income families (based on data on student earnings in Finnie and Laporte, (a)). This unequal access to better-paying jobs represents another barrier for low-income students.

CHAPTER 3 — STUDENT COSTS AND RESOURCES

83

possible that a student’s course load was not as heavy as expected, freeing up some time for work. Other reasons may reflect real need, such as costs being higher than anticipated, a surprise expense or other sources of income not providing as much as expected. The inability to know which students, among those who pick up work, are in financial difficulty makes it that much harder to develop appropriate policy responses.

Parental Contributions for Full-Time Students
Close to three-quarters (72%) of full-time students declared some parental contribution for the 2003–04 academic year. The average amount was $2,516. As shown previously by Junor and Usher (2004), the younger the student is, the more likely it is that he or she will receive some parental contribution. The average amount received by those students who were assisted by their parents, however, increases with age. Students in college were slightly less likely to receive parental contributions (69%) than were university students (74%). The average amount received by a college student was also lower—$1,462, compared with $2,956 for a university student. These differences are most probably linked to the socio-economic background of students attending these institutions. As shown in Figures 3.V.1 and 3.V.2, the higher the level of parental education, the

Who Receives Parental Contributions?
It has long been established that families are an important source of both monetary and non-monetary support for students. Parental contributions are the most common of all types of family contributions, which is why we focus on them in this section.11

Table 3.V.2 — Characteristics of Students With No Intention to Work at Beginning of Academic Year by Reported Employment Income During Academic Year
Characteristics No Employment Income Some Employment Income Total

greater the incidence of parental contributions and the greater the amounts provided. And, as family income rises, students are more likely both to receive parental contributions and to benefit from greater amounts of support.

The incidence and value of parental contributions also varies depending on the income sources upon which students rely (Table 3.V.3). Whether or not a student declares employment earnings during the year does not affect their chance of receiving parental

Figure 3.V.1 — Incidence and Average Amount of Parental Contribution by Parental Education

contributions; however, students who work receive, on average, a lower amount of parental contributions ($2,300) than do those who do not work ($3,200).12 Having a government loan, bursary or private loan are all associated with a lower incidence of parental contributions, as well as a lower average contribution amount.

Parental Contributions for Full-Time Students Receiving Student Loans
Parents’ role in supporting their offspring in higher education is clearly acknowledged by student financial aid programs. The Canada Student Loan program states that “the purpose [of student financial aid] is to supplement, not to replace, the financial resources that you (and your family, if applicable) are expected to contribute” (Government of Canada, 2006). Unless they come from low-income families, dependent students’ loan assessment calculates an expected parental contribution based on family income. There is no guarantee, of course, that the student will actually receive the expected contribution. The onus is placed on students to obtain the expected amount from their parents.

About a third of full-time dependent students who had a government loan said they did not receive any parental contribution during the 2003–04 academic year. As one would expect, students from lower income families were less likely to receive parental contributions than were those from higher income families; also, older students with a government loan were less likely to receive parental contributions than were younger ones (Figures 3.V.3 and 3.V.4). This is consistent with the fact that student financial aid programs do not expect contributions from students with the lowest family incomes and from students who are old enough to be considered independent of their parents. However, 33% of full-time independent students nonetheless received a contribution from their parents. There were also regional differences (Figure 3.V.5). In particular, students in Quebec were the most likely to report a parental contribution. This holds true even when controlling for age, suggesting that something else is at play in Quebec. A likely explanation is that the Quebec student financial aid system requires parents to contribute at a lower family income level than in other provinces (see Junor and Usher, 2004, p. 192). In terms of income sources, students who had a private loan on top of a public loan were more likely not to have received parental contributions (34.4%) than were those who did not have a private loan (27.3%). While all students draw on a number of different sources of income, the exact composition of the mix required to make ends meet differs substantially by students’ family income status. In the coming years, we should see more research on students’ finances and, most importantly, on the impact of different means of financing studies. This evidence is needed for policy-makers to decide on the best approaches to efficiently support students throughout their post-secondary studies. Changes to access to private borrowing should be closely monitored, as they may serve as an indication of the adequacy of the student financial aid system.

12. It should be noted that no causality is implied. It is impossible to say that because a student works, parental contribution is lower. It could be that the opposite is true: because parental contribution is low, a student needs to work.

VI. Going Beyond Making Ends Meet: Students’ Concerns
Despite the availability of data on the costs students face and the sources of income at their disposal, we still know relatively little about how financial pressures affect students’ lives while they are in school. It is always difficult to translate tabulations of figures into an appreciation of what goes on in the lives of specific individuals. Furthermore, evidence gathered through surveys of students’ own level of concern about their finances is highly subjective. Two students with similar financial circumstances may express very different levels of concern, depending on their personal history, their expectations, their aversion to risk, and so on. That being said, it is nevertheless worthwhile to look at what surveys can tell us about students’ financial concerns. Financial concerns may create undue stress among certain students, stress that may in turn produce undesirable individual and social outcomes, such as students dropping out of their programs. By using a large sample of CEGEP students, for example, Gingras and Terril (2006) show that having financial concerns is associated with a lower graduation rate from CEGEP, even when controlling for the effect of students’ grades. Similarly, financial difficulties may lead individuals to interrupt their program, although some of those who “stop out” do come back to finish their programs.13 According to the Canadian University Survey Consortium (CUSC) survey, 22% of university students who were planning to graduate in 2006 had interrupted their studies at one point or another. The reasons given by students for this interruption vary; those cited most often included the desire for employment, financial reasons and interruptions related to travel (Table 3.VI.1). In the 2006 college student survey (CSS), a similar proportion of students (18%) said they had interrupted their studies. For these students, however, a lack of funds was clearly the most important reason (Table 3.VI.2).
Table 3.VI.1 — Reason for Interrupting Studies (University Students)
Reason Proportion

Illness/injury Financial Other family/personal Required to withdraw by the university Employment Travel Not sure what to do/needed a break Attended another university/college

13.4% 21.6% 16.4% 8.5% 34.9% 21.4% 4.8% 4.1%

Note: The sum is greater than 100%, as multiple responses were allowed. Source: CUSC, 2006

Insufficient funds Time conflict with work Time conflict with family/personal Academic difficulties Change of program Moved Family/friends were not supportive Other

40.8% 22.0% 19.6% 16.1% 24.3% 9.5% 5.4% 28.5%

Note: The sum is greater than 100%, as multiple responses were allowed. Source: CSS, 2006

13. It should be noted that both of the surveys cited in this paragraph were restricted to students enrolled in university or college at the time the surveys were conducted. Thus, those respondents who had previously left school for any given reason had, by the time of the survey, succeeded in returning to their studies. Students who had dropped out and not returned by the time of the survey were excluded. At this time, little research has been done on how and why students who interrupt their studies make it back to school.

91

Chapter 3

VII. Conclusion: Rethinking the System?
In Chapter 1, we argued that Canada needs to increase participation in post-secondary education if it is to continue to develop skilled and educated workers in the numbers the country requires. For this reason, and for others (notably the principle of equality of opportunity), making sure that qualified individuals are not denied access to—and ultimately graduation from—higher education because of their less advantaged financial background must remain an important public policy goal. While finances are only one of many barriers that confront students before and during their post-secondary studies (see Chapter 2), they arguably are the one that can be most directly and immediately addressed through public policy. This will only happen, however, if that public policy—in the form of student financial assistance programs—is both sufficiently resourced and sharply focused. Among other things, it is important to make sure that the financial aid system is flexible enough to respond to students with different needs. Chapter 4 will present research suggesting that different mixes of financial aid may lead to different outcomes in terms of student persistence and ultimately graduation. While this area of research is still in its infancy in Canada, there is now evidence to suggest that providing students with grants as well as loans improves their educational outcomes. Without pre-empting the discussion that follows in the next chapter, we wish to underline the point that thinking about the appropriate design of student financial aid programs is an important part of ensuring the success of students from different backgrounds. In 2005, the Foundation introduced access bursaries for dependent students for which eligibility is based on family income rather than assessed need.14 Preliminary analysis of the average assessed need of access bursary recipients and millennium bursary15 recipients eloquently shows how changing the parameters of a program can affect students. As shown in Figure 3.VII.1, access bursary recipients have lower assessed need than millennium bursary recipients. Because of their lower financial need, low-income students would not have received a millennium bursary or, in many cases, a comparable provincial or federal grant had the access bursary program not been introduced. The availability of the Foundation’s access bursaries, along with complementary Canada Access Grants (also introduced in 2005–06), therefore helps low-income students make ends meet without having to undertake as much debt as would previously have been the case. The actual impact of the access bursaries over time will be evaluated through the Foundation’s research program.16 This is one example of how the financial aid system can be re-tooled to assist students who have traditionally been under-represented in post-secondary education. It is, hopefully, only the beginning of an effort to modernize student financial assistance in order to ensure that it is in tune with overall policy objectives, such as the need to improve access and increase participation rates. This example also serves to illustrate two further points. The first is that, if we are to encourage

14. This is the case in eight of the 10 Canadian provinces. It should be noted that students still need to have financial need to be eligible for an access bursary; however, among students with financial need, access bursaries are awarded to those with the lowest family incomes. More information on the eligibility criteria for the access bursaries can be found on the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s website: http://www.millenniumscholarships.ca/en/programs/access.asp. 15. The general millennium bursaries are awarded to students with the greatest financial need and not those with the lowest family incomes. Financial need is determined by subtracting resources from costs; depending on the status of the student, the assessment of resources may or may not include parental income. 16. More information on the evaluation of the access bursaries can be found at: http://www.millenniumscholarships.ca/en/research/MESA.asp.

students who have not traditionally been going to post-secondary education to undertake studies, we need to keep in mind that their needs may be different from those whose backgrounds make them much more likely to attend college or university. Pathways into and out of the education system are not as linear as those for more “traditional” groups of students. Current student financial assistance rules may not be flexible enough to allow students to get the financial support they need. The second point is that, to the extent that we succeed in enhancing access for previously underrepresented groups of students and therefore

changing the make-up of the student body, there will be financial implications for the student support system. A different student body may need a different and even more extensive mix of student assistance, including financial assistance. Policy-makers will have to strike a balance, ensuring the efficient use of public funds without compromising equity and the need for better results for students. This is crucial but far from being an easy goal to achieve. The next chapter will contribute to this effort by looking more directly at what and how governments spend in their efforts to support students.

The Price of Knowledge
Access and Student Finance in Canada

Chapter 4

How Governments Support Students

4

95

Chapter 4

I. Introduction
Sustaining Canada’s prosperous standard of living in an increasingly global knowledge economy will require substantial efforts to keep post-secondary education accessible and affordable for youth from all backgrounds, including those currently underrepresented on post-secondary campuses. These efforts must include the development of a financial support system for students that is effective at delivering aid to those who need it most and in ways that have the most impact on success. In the first chapter of this series, we identified three broad groups of Canadian youth who are essential to the goal of increasing post-secondary participation: low-income youth; the children of parents with no higher educational background, known as first-generation youth; and Aboriginal youth. In Chapter 2, we discussed the complex web of barriers facing these students, describing how they overlap, and how barriers persist once a student enrols at a college or university. In the preceding chapter, we used recent data on student finances to show that many of these students are dependent on governmental support to help pay for their studies. In the following chapter, we examine student debt levels and the problems that some students encounter in repaying their loans after graduation. The subject of this chapter is the various approaches governments have taken to supporting Canadian students. Governments currently provide in excess of six billion dollars each year to students, in the form of student loans, grants, scholarships and tax credits. In the first sections of the chapter, we focus on two particular forms of student funding: grants and tax credits. We argue that students who must borrow or who are less likely to access postsecondary studies will require assistance intended specifically for them if they are to successfully complete their studies. Because grants are delivered on the basis of financial need and do not need to be repaid, they have been shown to reduce student debt and improve a student’s chances of completing his or her studies. Tax credits, on the other hand, are delivered in a manner that is difficult to decipher, and are poorly targeted at those who need assistance the most. As a result, their impact on student success is negligible (in fact, tax spending favours those who seem to need it the least). Unfortunately, Canadian governments spend more than twice as much on tax credits as on grants. This chapter continues with an overview of the evolution of student financial aid from the early 1990s to the middle of this decade. Over the course of 10 years, governments dramatically escalated spending on “universal” assistance, available to all students more or less equally, at the expense of support based on financial need. As essential resources flow away from those in need in favour of students who are relatively more well off, Canada’s framework for supporting students is becoming increasingly ineffective, precisely when it must be brought into focus. With that in mind, we describe more recent policy changes, including improvements to both loan and grants programs, assessing how effective they might be at keeping student debt in check and assisting students with financial need.

97

Chapter 4

II. Grants
Each year, Canadian governments spend approximately $1.2 billion on non-repayable student financial assistance, in the form of grants to students that are in addition to or in place of their loans, or in the form of remission payments to loan providers to reduce student debt levels. Grants and loan remission make up about 30% of all the financial aid provided to students on the basis of their financial need, with the remainder coming in the form of loans.1 Non-repayable assistance can have a direct, positive impact on student finances in one of two ways. First, grants provided to students who have borrowed the maximum provided by student loan programs reduce unmet need (the amount of financial need that is recognized but not covered by student aid programs). This, in turn, reduces borrowing from banks (and other sources, such as family members), which offer more expensive loans to students than those provided by governments. Students who receive sufficient financial aid can also concentrate more on school than on part-time, or even full-time, work. Second, grants that replace loans effectively reduce the amount of financial aid a student must repay. Some upfront grants replace corresponding amounts otherwise provided as loans. Other grants, provided through loan remission programs, do not provide students with additional funds, even in cases where students have unmet need. Instead, they generally make payments to loan providers to reduce existing student debt at the end of a year of study (or at the end of a program of study). Unlike grants that provide students with additional cash in hand, preventing the accumulation of more debt, loan remission reduces existing debt without affecting student cash flow.2 Studies conducted for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation by Victoria-based researcher Lori McElroy describe three examples of the impact of both kinds of non-repayable assistance on student debt and academic performance. In all three cases, grants and loan remission are shown to reduce student debt and improve students’ likelihood of completing their studies.3 The first study examines the persistence levels (that is, the degree to which students are likely to continue from one year of study to the next) of students on six Canadian university campuses. Using administrative data, McElroy concludes that students with large debt loads are more likely than those with little debt to abandon their studies before graduation. As demonstrated in Figure 4.II.1, among students who receive their financial aid in the form of a loan exclusively, those who borrow in excess of $3,000 per year are less than half as likely to complete a degree as those borrowing less than $1,000. However, students who receive a grant in addition to or instead of a portion of their loan are substantially more likely to complete their studies. Among those who qualify for more than $10,000 per year in financial aid, recipients of loans and grants are five times as likely as those only receiving loans to complete their program.

1. 2.

As described in the following section, considerably more assistance is provided to students without regard to their financial need, chiefly in the form of measures delivered through the tax system. Most non-repayable assistance programs provide students with payments in addition to or instead of loans. There are some, however, that offer both, including the Millennium Bursary Program in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Alberta. The millennium access bursaries and grants in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan also attempt to address unmet need for students. In Saskatchewan, the $2,000 award is provided first as a cash grant to any student with unmet need up to the maximum amount possible, with the remainder being applied to a student’s loan. In the two Atlantic provinces, each eligible student will receive a loan reduction payment of $1,000, and any student with unmet need is eligible for up to $2,500 more in the form of a cash grant commensurate to their level of unmet need. McElroy’s findings are summarized in Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2006.

McElroy’s second study, an analysis of the effects of the Millennium Bursary Program in Manitoba (a loan remission program), further demonstrates the relationship between student debt and persistence. McElroy compares the student aid administrative data of millennium bursary recipients with a control group of similar students who studied prior to the creation of the program. She reports that the dropout rates of beneficiaries of the program were between 28% and 40% lower than the control group, depending on the length of study.4 Finally, McElroy’s similar analysis of the Millennium Bursary Program in British Columbia reveals the limits of loan remission programs. Because B.C. students had substantial levels of unmet need, the effect on persistence of the loan remission program, which reduced debt levels substantially but did not increase total student funds, was mitigated. Students in two-year programs who received the bursary were more likely to reach the final year of their program than those who did not benefit from the bursary. Students in four-year programs, who had significant unmet need, did not benefit from increased persistence.

McElroy concludes that efforts to keep debt levels reasonable will not be effective if students cannot make ends meet during the academic year. In other words, efforts to reduce debt, which affect students’ medium- and long-term fiscal situations, are unlikely to have much impact on their ability to pay the bills at the end of the month. Therefore, they cannot always prevent instances of students’ dropping out. McElroy’s analysis of the impact of grant and remission programs suggests three benefits of providing students with grants instead of or in addition to loans. First, they reduce the accumulation of debt, which as shown in Chapter 5, can restrict individuals’ ability to progress after graduation. Second, measures to reduce debt can help students overcome some of the financial barriers discussed in Chapter 2. Third, policy-makers can use grants as a financial tool to improve academic persistence by allowing students to focus more on academics and less on finances. For these reasons, policy-makers seeking to maximize the benefits of public expenditures on student assistance should look to grants as an effective financial tool to improve success at the post-secondary level.

4.

Students in two-year college programs who received the bursary were 40% less likely to abandon their studies. Students in three- and four-year university programs were 32% and 28% less likely to drop out, respectively. McElroy was able to control for the effect of changes in tuition policy in Manitoba during the years in question.

CHAPTER 4 — HOW GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT STUDENTS

99

Fortunately, investment in grants has been increasing in recent years at all levels: federal, provincial and through the creation of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. At the federal level, the introduction of millennium bursaries and Canada Study Grants led to the payment of an additional $285 million and approximately $75 million, respectively, on grants annually by the beginning of this decade. In 2005–06, these amounts were

augmented by the introduction of millennium access grants (approximately $35 million in that year5) and Canada Access Grants (figures for 2005–06 unavailable). Provincially, new access grant programs were introduced in Ontario in 2005–06, and improvements in existing grant programs have recently been announced or implemented in Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.

5.

Over the course of four academic years, beginning in 2005–06, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation has committed to providing $200 million in millennium access grants to students in all provinces and territories. Amounts for 2005–06 are lower than expected because disbursement agreements were not yet fully in place in Alberta, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.

101

Chapter 4

III. Tax Credits
Canadian governments provide nearly one-third of student support measures—about $2 billion each year —through the tax system. Spending on educational tax credits has increased faster than any other form of student assistance since the mid-1990s. Ottawa and the provinces spend more on tax credits for students than they do on student loans and grants. Though tax spending has quadrupled since 1993, relatively little is known about the effectiveness of tax credits in making higher education more accessible or more affordable to Canadians. This section explores the different kinds of tax credits available to Canadian students and their families.6 Though they are linked to the cost of studies and the amount of time a student is enrolled in higher education, tax system expenditures are not made on the basis of an individual’s level of financial need. Unlike student loans, grants and remission payments, tax credits are doled out universally, to all post-secondary students who bother to file a tax return. Students who owe very little taxes (or none at all) may carry forward the credits for use in future years or transfer them to a family member. Using tax file data, Dr. Christine Neill (2007) examines who benefits the most from tax credits. She argues that, while tax credits theoretically reduce the cost of attendance in post-secondary education, they have little effect on issues of access and seem to benefit those who need them the least, while often leaving low-income students in the lurch.

Taxonomy
There are seven ways in which the Canadian tax system is used to support post-secondary students and their families, as outlined in Table 4.III.1. Of these, the largest expenditures relate to the tuition fee tax credit and the education tax credit, either directly or through the transfer and carry-forward provisions that allow the tax credits to be used by family members or in future years. The analysis below focuses on these two credits and provisions.7 The tuition fee tax credit was created in 1961. It allows post-secondary students to claim their tuition fees (and, since 1997, ancillary fees) as a non-refundable tax credit, reducing the amount of taxes they owe by the amount of the credit multiplied by the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket (currently 15.5% at the federal level). Because the tax credit corresponds directly to the tuition and fee amounts, students in high-cost programs receive a larger tax credit. If a student’s tax savings are greater than the amount of taxes he or she owes, the value of the remaining credit may be transferred to a family member or carried forward to a future year (students may also opt to transfer the entire credit, regardless of their own tax situation). However, the tuition fee tax credit is nonrefundable, meaning it is often impossible for students with low incomes (who owe little or no tax) to fully benefit from it in the year in which it was issued.

6.

This section is based on work conducted for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation by Dr. Christine Neill, whose full report, Canada’s Tuition and Education Tax Credits, is available on the Foundation’s Web site, www.millenniumscholarships.ca. For an analysis of tax expenditures through the Registered Education Savings Plan program, see Milligan, 2002. There are additional tax credits for post-secondary graduates provided by the governments of Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. See Section IV for more detail.

Table 4.III.1 — Tax System Supports for Post-Secondary Students
Tax System Support Description

Tuition Fee Tax Credit Education Tax Credit

Tuition and ancillary fees paid to eligible post-secondary education institutions are eligible credits against income taxes paid federally and in all provinces.8 Available federally and in all provinces but Quebec, this credit depends on the number of months a student has been studying in the tax year, and his or her part-time or full-time status. Enables students to transfer the value of some of their credits to their parents or spouse. Enables students to carry the credits forward to a future year if they cannot be used this year. A type of savings account that grows, tax-free, until a child is ready for postsecondary education. Through the related Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) and Canada Learning Bond, the federal government provides matching and additional deposits into the RESP. The 2007 federal budget increased the amount that could be deposited into an RESP from $42,000 to $50,000 and eliminated the annual contribution limit. It also increased the maximum annual CESG from $400 to $500. Interest paid on a student loan during the preceding five years may be claimed as a tax deduction. Until 2005, $3,000 of income received in the form of scholarships, fellowships, bursaries and grants was exempt from taxation; in the 2006 federal budget, the exemption limit was removed, making all income tax-free, provided the student is eligible to claim the education tax credit.

The education tax credit was established to provide tax assistance to all students, regardless of the cost of their program. For every month of full-time studies in which a student is enrolled, he or she may claim a tax credit of $400 (part-time students are entitled to a monthly credit of $120). The education tax credit exists, at different amounts, in most provinces; it is highest in Ontario and does not exist in Quebec. In the 2006 budget, the federal government announced a textbook tax credit of $65 per full-time month and $20 per part-time month.9 As with the tuition tax credit, the education and textbook tax credits may be carried forward or transferred; they are multiplied by the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket to determine their value. Because tuition costs, which determine the value of the tuition tax credit, and the education tax credit vary by province, the distribution of tax savings differ substantially by jurisdiction. Additionally, the

tax rates in each province determine the value of the tax savings. As Figure 4.III.1 demonstrates, students in provinces with relatively high tuition, such as Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, receive the greatest savings from the tax system. (Ontarians receive a relatively smaller benefit despite a similar average tuition level because the province’s lowest tax rate is substantially lower.) Quebec students, who pay the lowest tuition, receive the smallest tax savings ($1,245), although that amount actually covers half the average tuition and fee charges. In 1996, the tax credit amount a student could transfer to his or her parents was increased from $4,000 to $5,000. One year later, the carry-forward provision was introduced, allowing students to save any unused tax credits for future years. Because both students and parents in low-income households had a smaller chance of using the full value of the credits (since their tax bill would be relatively low in the year

8. 9.

Quebec students may not claim ancillary fee amounts. The new credit is expected to cost $125 million and will provide full-time students with about $80 more in after-tax income. A 2003 survey by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation found most university textbooks to cost in the range of $80 to $90 per one-term course. It should be noted that the education tax credit was created in part to assist students with the cost of books

CHAPTER 4 — HOW GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT STUDENTS

103

Figure 4.III.1 — Cost of University After Tax Savings and the Percentage of University Costs Covered by Tax Savings by Province

$10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000

50% 47% 47% 40% 37% 32% 34% 41% 40% 33%
$2,253

50%

Net Costs of University Total Tax Savings Percentage of Cost Covered by Tax Savings

they were earned), the carry-forward provision enables them to hang on to the credits until they can be fully used. Though this ensures that all students can benefit, eventually, from the tax credits, the amounts are not indexed to inflation, meaning that the value of the credits erodes the longer they are carried forward.

Who Benefits
The Government of Canada spends more annually on tax credits for students than on student loans and grants, devoting almost two-thirds of direct payments to students and their families to tax system supports. As Figure 4.III.2 displays, tax expenditures for students and their families cost the federal government about $1.6 billion annually, $500 million more than it spends on the Canada Student Loans Program. (It is estimated that the

provinces spend about $500 million on tax credits each year.) Because tax credits can only be claimed upon filing an income tax return (typically in the spring), students cannot benefit until after the regular academic year is over.10 For students from lowincome families, the fact that the credits are nonrefundable often means that they must be carried forward until there is enough household income to benefit from them. The downside of tax credits is twofold: they can only be used at the end of the academic year; and the poorest beneficiaries must wait longest to use them. Another way of determining who benefits from the credits is to ask whether the credits primarily benefit students from families with relatively low income. Like other universal benefits—including overall subsidies to post-secondary institutions, which are often measured as expenditures perstudent—the credits provide almost equal benefits to all post-secondary students. Tax credits, like any

10. This issue is exacerbated for students in their first year who begin studying in the fall semester. At the end of the academic year, which coincides with tax return season, students will only be able to benefit from the tax credits earned during the preceding calendar year. In other words, first-year students will only benefit from credits accumulated during the first semester of study; they do not benefit from a full year’s worth of credits until the end of their second year of study at the earliest.

universal subsidy, are tilted in favour of those who go— and high-income families are twice as likely to send their children to university as low-income families. High-income families can therefore expect to receive a disproportionately large share of savings from tuition and education tax credits as low-income families. The fact that students from high-income families are more likely than their counterparts from low-income families to enrol in expensive programs means that the credits, which are partially related to the actual cost of study, are further tilted in their favour. Thus, the manner in which educational tax credits are both allocated and administered appears to benefit individuals from wealthy backgrounds the most. They appear to be a poor way of making post-secondary education more accessible and affordable to low-income individuals.

Worth the Money?
Given that tax credits are poorly targeted, the cause for concern is the trend described in the following section. As governments continue to invest new funds in universal assistance, primarily through tax credits, need-based aid programs struggle to provide adequate funding to students with high costs or from low-income families. Assuming that there are just over a million fulltime students in Canada, Neill suggests that the expenditures on tax credits could provide each with an annual grant of about $1,100. Moreover, the expenditures on universal tax credits could be funnelled into existing need-based aid programs, such as student loans or grants. At the very least, they could be spent on reducing or freezing tuition, which would have no different distributional effects, but would at least be easier to comprehend and would benefit students at the precise time they are trying to make ends meet.11

11. See Neill (2007) for a summary of the evidence that suggests that tax credits in the United States have little impact on enrolment (no similar analysis has been conducted in Canada).

CHAPTER 4 — HOW GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT STUDENTS

105

These options should not be taken as prescriptions, but as examples of the relatively large size of tax expenditures to students. Given anticipated demographic shifts described in Chapter 1, unless enrolment in post-secondary education is encouraged among youth currently under-represented in higher education, Canada’s economic competitiveness will erode. Despite being the largest expenditure provided to Canadian students and their families, tax credits simply do not help those most in need. They may not even be understood by those who do benefit from them. Adapting Canadian student financial aid to increase access to post-secondary education means re-examining existing support measures in light of new objectives.

As reported earlier, recent evidence suggests that grant and remission programs have a direct, measurable impact on student debt levels and completion rates. No such claim can be made for tax credits. Yet, as discussed in the next section, spending on tax system measures outpaces expenditures on non-repayable assistance by a factor of nearly two to one. In shaping student aid policy to meet the needs of those students who are most likely to require assistance in paying for a higher education, it is worth considering whether tax credits impede progress instead of enabling it.

107

Chapter 4

IV. A Ten-Year Portrait of Student Aid
This section provides a portrait of federal and provincial spending on student financial assistance between the 1993–94 and 2003–04 academic years. Using data from The State of Student Aid in Canada (Usher, 2007), it explores trends in government loan and grant expenditures, loan remission programs and expenditures through the tax system.12 It highlights three significant trends. First, after growing during the mid-1990s, the amount of need-based financial aid provided to Canadian students has returned to 1993 levels, despite increased tuition costs and growing university enrolment. At the same time, the number of student aid recipients declined by nearly 100,000 between 1997 and 2003. Second, substantial investment has been made in “universal” financial aid, which is provided to all students regardless of their level of financial need, primarily through the tax system. Third, as a result, Canadian governments spent substantially more on students at the end of the 10-year period than at the beginning, but it is unclear to what extent the new, universal investment has improved access to affordable higher education in Canada.

Trends in Student Loans and Grants
In 2003–04, governments provided nearly $2.7 billion worth of “net loans” to students.13 This is approximately the same as the amount provided in 1993–94, but is considerably less than the amount provided in more recent years, during which net loans peaked at nearly $3.8 billion (Figure 4.IV.1). There are two reasons why net loan amounts were similar at the beginning and end of the 10-year tracking period (and are thus now lower than they were in the mid-1990s). First, during the late 1990s, the Ontario government made it harder to get a loan. In 1998, the province reclassified independent students (those expected not to receive parental support) and increased the expected parental contribution for dependent students, reducing the portion of a student’s need covered by public student aid. During the same year, Ontario also tightened the institutional criteria for student aid eligibility, meaning that students at many private vocational schools could no longer qualify for financial assistance. Because Ontario represents almost two-fifths of the country’s population, changes in that jurisdiction dramatically affect national averages.

12. The report does not detail student financial aid expenditures by post-secondary institutions or other non-governmental sources. Province-by-province analyses, published by the Educational Policy Institute, discuss changes to student aid distributed on the basis of merit, largely through the federal government’s granting councils and the provinces. Public merit-based assistance totalled approximately $200 million in 2003-04. Additionally, figures presented in this section have been adjusted to 2005 dollars, unless otherwise indicated. 13. A “net loan” is the value of a loan provided to a student once loan remission payments, which reduce the balance of the loan, have been taken into account. When calculating total amounts of student aid, measuring net loans ensures no double-counting (i.e., loan amounts that are remitted are counted as remission, not both remission and loan).

Ontario changed the way it paid loan remission in 1999–2000. Prior to that, remission was paid at graduation. Since then, it has been paid at the end of the academic year. In 1999–2000, therefore, the province paid remission both to graduating students and to students who had completed a full academic year, a virtual double cohort of remission recipients.

Second, during the period in question, governments in Canada increased the amount of non-repayable assistance they provided. While net loan amounts were virtually the same in 2003–04 as in 1993–94, grants and loan remission payments increased substantially, from $478 million to $1.1 billion. As demonstrated in Figure 4.IV.2, the share of need-based aid that did not need to be repaid doubled, from 15% to 30% between 1993–94 and 2003–04. Figure 4.IV.3 offers a portrait of need-based government student aid provided by the federal and provincial governments and the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, a federally created organization that distributes grant and loan remission assistance to students in each province and territory. During the late 1990s and the early part of this decade, provincial funding for student aid decreased, beginning in 1997, due largely to a decline in spending caused by program changes in Ontario, where need-based aid was reduced by 40%

by 2003–04.14 To a certain extent, this is reflected in the decline in the number of student aid recipients, though it is unclear to what extent this decline was caused by a tightening of the eligibility criteria or by improved labour market conditions. In addition to the changes described earlier, in 1997 the Ontario government increased the point at which loan amounts were eligible for remission (earlier, students did not have to repay loans in excess of $6,000 per year; that amount was increased to $7,000). Additionally, it is important to note that since 2003–04, there has been an increase in total needbased spending, although this change cannot be reflected in the figures presented in this section. In Ontario, following the findings of Bob Rae’s commission on post-secondary education, the province announced significant new investments in student aid, including $4.3 billion for operating grants to post-secondary institutions and $1.5 billion for increased student aid. As described in the next section, in its 2004 budget, the Government of

14. It has been argued that the introduction of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s bursaries displaced existing financial aid, causing a decline in provincial spending on student aid. This, however, is not the case, especially when the effect of the declining number of student financial aid recipients during the period is taken into account. The figures noted above demonstrate that provincial cuts to student aid programs (particularly in Ontario) began prior to the creation of the Foundation. Further, the Foundation secured reinvestment commitments from the provinces to ensure that savings realized due to the presence of millennium bursaries would be reinvested in student aid or the post-secondary sector. By and large, these commitments have been kept.

Canada announced higher student loan maximum limits, increased eligibility for Canada Student Loans and access grants for low-income students. The effects of these announcements will be twofold. First, changes to loan limits and loan eligibility will enable students borrowing at the maximum to receive more funds (instead of turning to private sources for additional funds, such as banks or family members) and will allow more middle-income families to have access to student aid for the first time. Second, low-income students will receive access grants instead of student loans, meaning the composition of their financial aid package will become increasingly non-repayable.

Trends in Universal Student Aid
While the changes observed during the last decade in need-based student aid are not insignificant, they pale in comparison to the movement occurring in

universal student aid. In addition to loans, grants and remission, all of which are doled out to students considered to be in financial need, Canadian governments provide other forms of assistance to all students, regardless of their financial circumstances. Universal aid allows governments to spread funds evenly among post-secondary students. These funds are delivered primarily through the tax system, in the form of the tax credits discussed in the previous section, or as Canada Education Savings Grants, which match payments made by parents into Registered Education Savings Plans. In 1993–94, Canadian governments provided just over $700 million in the form of universal financial aid. That amount more than tripled to $2.6 billion in 2003–04, far outpacing the growth in need-based financial aid. As demonstrated in Figure 4.IV.4, the share of financial aid provided on the basis of need has declined from 83% to 59%. Figure 4.IV.5 demonstrates that, while provincial universal aid has more than doubled, reaching $638 million in 2003–04, federal universal assistance nearly quintupled, to just under $2 billion that same year.

Do You Get What You Pay For?
In 2003–04, nearly 40 per cent of student aid funds were considered universal; that is, they were made available to students regardless of their financial situation, primarily through the tax system. The trend in student financial aid continues to move in the direction of universal benefits—witness the creation of the textbook tax credit in the 2006 federal budget and the increases to the Registered Education Savings Plan and Canada Education Savings Grant programs this year. The trend, however, is exacerbated if we turn our attention away from what students receive, and toward what governments actually spend. While grants, remission payments, tax expenditures and merit scholarships cost their actual value, loans cost substantially less. A dollar provided as a grant costs government a dollar. According to Junor and Usher, a dollar provided as a loan costs anywhere from twenty-five to forty cents, once repayment is taken into account. Government loans are partially subsidized, as the interest that accumulates during the study period (“Class A” interest) does not need to be paid by the student. Further, government loan programs cover the costs associated with defaults and loans that are written off. In the same year that a government provides loans to students, loans it has issued in previous years are repaid. Because a dollar of loan winds up costing less than fifty cents, governments can get substantially more bang for their buck from loans than from other forms of student aid. To put it another way, every dollar the government spends on tax credits represents more than $2 that could be spent on loans. Focusing on what governments actually spend provides even stronger evidence for the relative weight of universal financial aid. As Figure 4.IV.6 demonstrates, total government expenditures on universal assistance began to exceed need-based spending at the start of this decade, (partly because the most common form of need-based aid—loans—are also the cheapest). Though students still receive slightly more need-based aid than universal aid, governments now spend a majority of their aid funds without regard to the recipient’s financial situation.
(Continued on page 112)

Summary
While governments unquestionably spent more on student financial aid in 2003–04 than they did 10 years earlier (Figure 4.IV.6), the trends are worrying for two reasons. First, student financial aid is increasingly being provided to students who may not need it. Universal funds, provided as tax credits or through the Registered Education Savings Program, tend to flow to students from wealthy families. As discussed extensively in Chapter 1, individuals from the highest-income families are more than twice as likely as those from the lowest-income families to pursue university studies. Because the billions of dollars provided in the form of tax system expenditures to students are not allocated on the basis of financial need, they wind up subsidizing the education of the well-off. It is alarming that the growth in universal financial aid appears to be coming at the expense of need-based aid. In 2003–04, governments provided almost the exact same amount of need-based aid as they did 10 years earlier, despite 10 years of tremendous growth in post-secondary enrolment. While the quality of need-based aid may have improved, since a larger share of these funds were

provided as non-repayable assistance, the share of overall funding delivered as need-based is relatively low. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, a large group of students rely on public need-based aid to afford their studies. Every dollar offered as a tax credit or education savings grant reduces the pool of funds available to the students with the highest levels of need. Second, it is unclear to what extent universal financial aid has an impact on post-secondary affordability or completion. As described earlier, it appears that tax credits have a minimal impact on students’ success rates, particularly when the most financially vulnerable students have the most trouble using them. Meanwhile, grants and loan remission programs have been demonstrated to reduce student debt and improve academic outcomes. Despite evidence that one kind of support produces tangible benefits, most new funds are flowing in the opposite direction. Finally, an additional important trend has emerged in Canadian student financial assistance. The federal/ provincial share of student aid funds has flipped. In 1993–94, the federal government provided $1.8 billion to Canadian students, representing 44% of student aid funds. Ten years later, Ottawa provided almost $4.1 billion to students, representing 64% of student aid dollars.

113

Chapter 4

V. The Further Evolution of Canadian Student Aid
Since the last edition of The Price of Knowledge, the student financial aid landscape has evolved considerably. Measures in the 2004 federal budget, which have taken effect in the years following, have changed the Canada Student Loans Program. Additionally, there have been considerable changes to provincial student financial aid programs. This section describes some of the major shifts beginning in the 2003–04 academic year. These include: • introduction of the Canada Access Grant and the millennium access bursaries and grants, as well as complementary provincial programs, all of which deliver non-repayable assistance to students from low-income families • increases to the maximum student loan provided by federal and provincial student aid programs (the first increases since 1993–94) • changes to the need assessment process, which determines students’ eligibility for financial aid, including a relaxation of expected parental contributions that has allowed more middle-income students to qualify for student loans and grants • increased tax-based expenditures on students. It is unclear whether these changes will combine to create the kind of large-scale change in student financial aid policy that occurred between 1993–94 and 2003–04, when funding became increasingly universal and non-repayable. The role and sheer size of the tax system will continue to ensure that a large share of student aid funds will continue to be provided to all students regardless of need. The coming years, however, will see continued increased spending from all sources on loans, grants and remission, owing to the changes described in this chapter.

Increased Access to Student Loans
The 2004 federal budget included a series of substantial changes to Canada Student Loan policy and practice. 1. The federal government announced that it would increase the maximum amount a student could borrow by $45 per week, from $165 a week to $210 a week. Students eligible for the maximum amount of assistance would have access to an additional $1,530 in student loans over the course of a typical eight-month academic year. This announcement was accompanied by a commitment to periodically review student loan limits to ensure the continued purchasing power of loans in the face of rising educational costs. Students with dependants would continue to have access to additional funds. 2. Ottawa also announced the creation of the Canada Access Grant, worth up to $3,000 or half the cost of a student’s tuition, whichever is less, and available to low-income first-year students. 3. The government announced that eligibility for Canada Student Loans would be expanded to up to 40,000 new students whose families earned income in the $60,000 to $100,000 range. 4. The government also tweaked its need assessment formula, which determines a student’s financial aid package, allowing students to claim a portion of computer-related costs in the calculation.

5. An upfront annual grant of $2,000 was introduced for students with permanent disabilities, replacing the Canada Study Grant for Students with Disabilities, which was only available to students with disabilities who borrowed the maximum student loan (the grant only covered costs in excess of the weekly loan limit). The new grant will be provided to all students with permanent disabilities who apply for financial aid before they receive a loan, not after. In 2006, the federal government announced additional changes to student support policies. The first eliminated taxation on scholarship income; previously, only $3,000 of income earned from scholarships and grants was exempt from taxation. Need-based grant recipients, merit scholarship recipients and research grant recipients stood to benefit as a result. Second, as discussed earlier, the federal government announced a tax credit for textbooks, which is being administered in a manner similar to the existing education tax credit and will mean an annual tax reduction of $80 for a typical full-time student. Third, the budget announced the implementation of the reduction of the parental contributions component of the Canada Student Loans Program first alluded to in 2004, with additional changes due in 2007. Fourth, it also introduced a series of tax credits and deductions for apprentices and trades people, as well as for the employers that hire them. Finally, Ottawa confirmed creation of a $1 billion fund that provinces and territories could access to support urgent infrastructure expenditures.15 A number of the changes outlined in the 2004 budget were implemented for the 2005–06 academic year; many were accompanied by changes at the provincial level. These changes are outlined in the Supplementary Tables (page 119), using the 2003–04 academic year as a reference. Table 1 explores the basic student assistance limits in each province and territory. Table 2 summarizes need-based loan reduction programs in each jurisdiction.

As mentioned, governments have also made it easier for students to borrow from public student aid programs, by reducing the expected financial contributions from parents of dependent students.16 Expected parental contributions were reduced because they have been demonstrated to be substantially higher than actual contributions (Hemingway, 2003). Table 3 describes the changes to parental contribution calculations. New grant money. The Canada Access Grant has been introduced in the Canada Student Loans zone (the program does not operate in Quebec, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, which do not participate in the federal loan program). The grant provides the lower amount of either half the value of tuition, $3,000 or the balance of the Canada Student Loan to first-year students from low-income families. A dependent student is considered to have low income if his or her family qualifies for the National Child Benefit Supplement. For the 2006–07 academic year, a family of four would have had to earn a net income of less than $41,336 to qualify for the grant. Additionally, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation introduced its millennium access grants and bursaries in most jurisdictions in 2005–06 (it is delivering these in Alberta and Prince Edward Island for the first time in 2006–07). Like the Canada Access Grant, these are available to low-income students. That said, the millennium access grants and bursaries have been implemented differently in each jurisdiction, according to the particular needs of students, as demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2. Both the Canada Access Grant and the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s access grants and bursaries were developed because students from low-income families often receive inadequate support from the student aid system. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, these students often behave in cost-conscious ways, choosing relatively inexpensive programs, or living at home during the year. All of these behaviours reduce their eligibility for the

15. How infrastructure funds are spent appears to be up to the provinces. For instance, the Government of Nova Scotia is using a portion of its share to fund a tuition reduction bursary for the province’s university students. 16. Students are considered to be independent of their parents if they are married, divorced or widowed, have a dependant, have been in the labour force for two years, or have been out of secondary school for more than four years. The Canada Student Loans Program does not consider parental resources in the calculation of independent students’ levels of financial need. Quebec students are considered to be independent if they are married, divorced or widowed, have a dependant, are at least 20 weeks pregnant, have been in the labour force for two years, have completed a Bachelor’s degree, have been attending university for three years, have earned 90 credits in a single program of study, have been out of full-time studies for seven years, or have no surviving parents. The Quebec government has not adjusted its parental contribution calculation.

highest amounts of student aid, which means they are less likely to benefit from grants targeted to “high-need” students. As Figure 4.V.I demonstrates, recipients of the millennium access grants and bursaries, who qualify based on their relatively low family income, had levels of assessed need that were lower than recipients of the millennium bursary, which is provided to student borrowers with the

highest levels of financial need. This is not to say that there is no overlap or that one group of students is more deserving of grants than another, only that different target populations must be reached in different ways. College students from low-income families and with need of $7,500 would generally not qualify for a millennium bursary, for example, but could qualify for an access bursary.

Supporting Students—After They Graduate
On April 15, 2005, the premier of New Brunswick announced the creation of a tax rebate worth up to $10,000 for post-secondary graduates working in the province, designed to make education more affordable and accessible, and encouraging skilled workers to settle in New Brunswick after completing their studies.17 Since then, a number of provinces have followed suit, establishing tax incentives for recent post-secondary graduates. Manitoba announced its Tuition Fee Income Tax Rebate in the November 2006 Throne Speech, which offers post-secondary graduates a rebate of up to $25,000 if they settle in the province. The 2007–08 provincial budget in Saskatchewan includes a Graduate Tax Exemption of up to $50,000, reducing graduates’ taxes by $1,100 during each of their first five years following graduation. Nova Scotia made a similar announcement in its 2006 budget, providing a $1,000 tax credit to individuals within three years of graduation.
(Continued on page 116)

17. The rebate is available to New Brunswick residents who meet certain eligibility criteria, which include graduation from a recognized post-secondary institution that need not be located in the province.

Supporting Students—After They Graduate (Continued from page 115)
Other provinces have created similar incentives to draw graduates into specific fields of study. The Pacific Leaders B.C. Loan Forgiveness program will cover graduates’ provincial loan interest charges and reduce their outstanding debt by one-third for every year they are employed full- or part-time by the provincial civil service (thereby eliminating the balance of the loan after three years). While these measures appear to be designed to encourage youth retention in provinces facing gloomy demographic forecasts, they are often presented as measures to improve access to higher education. It is conceivable that they will compete with need-based financial aid for scarce public funds. Because they have not been demonstrated to have an impact on educational affordability or accessibility, there is a danger that they will draw important resources away from demonstrably effective student support measures, such as grant and loan remission programs.

Summary
This chapter has described how the student financial assistance landscape has continued to evolve since the beginning of this decade. In particular, recent years have witnessed the introduction of new needand income-based grants, as well as the expansion of existing tax credits that support students and their families. Additionally, governments have improved financial need assessment formulas to better meet the needs of students, by recognizing students’ actual costs and the level of financial support from students’ parents. These changes are encouraging steps in the direction of more affordable post-secondary education. The current federal government’s stated goal of modernizing the student financial assistance system, however, will require a more comprehensive approach. As described earlier, Canadian student aid may not be providing sufficient resources to low-income, first generation and Aboriginal youth, all of whom will need to be able to afford higher

education if Canada is to meet the needs of its global knowledge economy. Canada’s student financial aid system, which consists of 14 separate programs that must interact with one another to function, requires attention beyond a mere individual-level approach. Modernizing student aid, then, will require discussion among policy-makers and educational stakeholders about the goals of student aid, which this report argues must include ensuring access to affordable post-secondary education for individuals currently unlikely to enrol in higher education. It must involve both a frank assessment of the tools governments have at their disposal to help students fund their studies and a willingness to enact policies directed at the populations with the greatest needs. While governments have demonstrated a willingness to examine the system comprehensively, much of the recent policy action appears to be of the piecemeal variety. The systemic change that is needed, however, will require a broad discussion about Canadian student aid and awareness of the effectiveness of the instruments of student financial aid.

117

Chapter 4

VI. Conclusion
This chapter has examined the role governments play in supporting students in the pursuit of their post-secondary education. In 2003–04, Canadian governments provided students with more than $6 billion in student loans, grants, remission payments, tax credits and scholarships. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, a significant proportion of the student population would not be able to study at the post-secondary level without publicly funded financial assistance. This chapter has discussed four important trends in the supports governments provide to students. While some of these trends are encouraging, there is cause for concern that public funds are not being used as effectively as they could be, particularly in light of the need to encourage greater participation in higher education among low-income, first-generation and Aboriginal youth. First, while the number of students enrolled in post-secondary education has grown substantially since the mid-1990s, the number of financial aid recipients has dropped off. This is due in part to tightened eligibility criteria that have made it harder for “at risk” borrowers to qualify for a loan, and in part to an advantageous labour market, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which each plays a role. Recent changes to rules surrounding parental contribution amounts should lead to an increase in the number of student aid recipients, as more middle-class youth become eligible for financial aid. Second, the amount of loans provided by governments peaked in the mid-nineties and then returned to 1993 levels by the 2003–04 academic year. Encouragingly, governments spent more on grants and loan remission in 2003 than they did 10 years earlier. In 1993–94, governments spent $528 million on non-repayable, need-based financial aid. By 2003–04, that amount had climbed to $1.176 billion. As described in Section 1 of this chapter, nonrepayable aid has been demonstrated to limit debt and also to increase a student’s likelihood of completing his or her studies. While financial aid generally allows students facing certain financial barriers to enrol in higher education, non-repayable aid specifically allows them to complete their studies. Third, while need-based aid has increased by 21%, almost entirely because of increases to grant and loan remission programs, universal expenditures that are provided through the tax system to all students without regard to financial need have grown by 227%. In 2003–04, Canadian governments spent more than $2.4 billion on tax credits and education savings grants that tend to benefit wealthy families the most. This amount exceeds government expenditures on student loans by more than $1 billion, and is almost $250 million more than all the need-based aid provided to Canadian students. As a result, universal financial aid has grown from less than one-third of funds provided to students to more than half. Fourth, the source of financial aid funds has shifted. In 1993–94, provincial governments provided $2.3 billion in financial aid, representing 56% of all funds made available by governments. The federal government provided $1.8 billion in financial aid. By 2003–04, provincial financial aid had decreased by $11 million, while federal aid had grown by $2.2 billion, representing 62% of all funds provided to students that year. The majority of this growth has occurred in the form of tax system supports. While governments have invested additional funds in need-based financial aid since 2003–04, the last year for which detailed analysis of public spending on student aid is possible, they have also expanded universal measures for students and graduates. This is alarming for two reasons. First, it is unclear to what extent universal measures will have any kind of impact on making higher education more affordable and, particularly, more accessible. While grants have been demonstrated to have a positive impact on a student’s financial and educational

prospects, no such claim can be made about tax system supports. As described earlier, tax credits tend to benefit those from wealthier families, meaning they are an ineffective way of improving access to post-secondary education for individuals currently under-represented on campus. Second, as will be discussed in Chapter 5, many students are graduating with considerable debt loads—amounts that may very well be unmanageable once repayment begins. While funds exist to restrict student debt levels, the majority of student

aid expenditures bear no relation whatsoever to a student’s financial situation, meaning their priority is not to make education accessible and affordable for those in need, but to somewhat reduce the costs of all students, even those who face no financial barriers. While maintaining an affordable postsecondary system is an important priority for all Canadian governments, delivering financial aid first to those who need it must remain an equally compelling objective.

$12,140/year maximum for 21–39 weeks of study $320/week ($575/week for students in medical school) $350/week Manitoba Study Assistance $40/week Millennium Aboriginal Access Bursary $2,000 for Aboriginal students in 1st year Millennium Adult Learner Bursary $5,000 for graduates of Adult Learning Centres in their 1st year of PSE AFE and Millennium Bursaries $12,800/year ($376/week) AFE and Millennium Bursaries $14,850 year ($437/week) AFE and Millennium Bursaries $14,850 year ($437/week) New Brunswick Bursary $90/week Millennium Access Grant Up to $2,500 for low-income students in 1st year

The values in the “Maximum loans” and “Maximum grants” columns do not necessarily add up to the figure in the final column, “Maximum aid,” because grants sometimes replace loans. Quebec totals apply only for students eligible for both loans and bursaries (students within the normal duration of studies plus six months). If a student is eligible for loans only (students within normal duration of studies plus seven to fifteen months), then the total maximum assistance will be equal to the maximum loan amount. These amounts will be changed in 2006–07 to return to the amounts that were in place in 2003–2004.

Table 2 — Loan Reduction Programs Across Canada in 2003–04 and 2005–06
Program Jurisdiction BC 2003–04 B.C. Grant and Millennium Bursary $110/week (first 136 weeks of post-secondary only). 2005–06 B.C./Millennium Loan Reduction Program Any B.C. student loan amount greater than $36.34 per week for students in their first 136 weeks).

Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount. AB Alberta Student Loan Relief Benefit Available to first-time, first-year post-secondary students who have been issued more than $2,500/semester in combined federal/provincial loans. The amount of loan relief is equal to the total value of federal/provincial loans minus $2,500 per year of study. It is normally paid as a grant at the start of the second semester of first year and replaces provincial loans. Loan Relief Program Completion Payment Available to graduating students who have been issued more than $2,500/semester in combined federal/provincial loans. The amount of loan relief is equal to the total value of federal/provincial loans minus $5,000 per year of study. It is paid upon completion of studies and applied against provincial loans. Application is not automatic. Alberta Opportunity Bursary (1st and 2nd year) and Millennium Bursary (2nd year onward) $3,000/semester Alberta Student Loan Relief Benefit Available to first-time, first-year post-secondary students who have been issued more than 3,750/semester in combined federal/provincial loans. The amount of loan relief is equal to the total value of federal/provincial loans minus $3,750 per year of study. It is paid upon completion of studies and applied against provincial loans. It is normally paid as a grant at the start of the second semester of first year and replaces provincial loans. Loan Relief Program Completion Payment Available to graduating students who have been issued more than $3,570/semester in combined federal/ provincial loans. The amount of loan relief is equal to the total value of federal/provincial loans minus $7,140 per year of study. It is paid upon completion of studies and applied against provincial loans. Application is not automatic. Alberta Opportunity Bursary (1st and 2nd year) and Millennium Bursary (2nd year onward) $3,000/semester Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount.
(Continued on the next page)

CHAPTER 4 — HOW GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT STUDENTS

121

Table 2 — Loan Reduction Programs Across Canada in 2003–04 and 2005–06 (continued from page 120)
Program Jurisdiction SK 2003–04 Saskatchewan Student Bursary Available to all students with loan assistance exceeding $200/week for the first 170 weeks of post-secondary study. 2005–06 Millennium Aboriginal Access Bursary

$2,000 for Aboriginal students in 1st year Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount. Saskatchewan Student Bursary Available to all students with loan assistance exceeding $210/week for the first 170 weeks of post-secondary study. Millennium Bursary Between $2,000 and $4,000 per academic year.

Remission (Special Incentive Students only)3 Available to Special Incentive Students whose total student loan assistance exceeds $105/week of study. Remission is available on the amount between $105 and $180 per week of study, and is only applied to the student’s first 60 weeks of post-secondary study. Successful completion of 60% of a full course load is required. Millennium Bursary Between $2,000 and $4,000 per academic year. MB Manitoba Study Assistance $40/week. Manitoba Bursary Up to $1,000. Millennium Bursary $1,000 to $4,000. ON Ontario Student Opportunity Grant If the student’s combined federal/provincial loan exceeds $7,000 for two terms or $10,500 for three terms, a grant will be awarded to reduce debt to those amounts. It is paid at the end of each year and applied against provincial loans once income verification has processed. Millennium Bursary $3,000 grant that replaces student loan.

Millennium Adult Learner Bursary $5,000 for graduates of Adult Learning Centres in their 1st year of PSE. Manitoba Bursary Up to $1,000. Millennium Bursary $1,000 to $4,000. Millennium/Ontario Access Grant (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or amount of Ontario student loan for low-income students. Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount. Ontario Access Grant (2nd year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or amount of Ontario student loan for low-income students. Ontario Student Opportunity Grant If the student’s combined federal/provincial loan exceeds $7,000 for two terms or $10,500 for three terms, a grant will be awarded to reduce debt to those amounts. It is paid at the end of each year and applied against provincial loans once income verification has processed. Millennium Bursary $3,000 grant that replaces student loan.

QC

Remission Available to students who have completed studies within a normal period of time and who have received a bursary during each year of study. The amount of remission is 15% of the outstanding loan. Application is not automatic. Millennium Bursary $2,000 to $4,000.

Remission Available to students who have completed studies within a normal period of time and who have received a bursary during each year of study. The amount of remission is 15% of the outstanding loan. Application is not automatic. Millennium Access Grant $1,000 for low-income students in 1st year (renewable for two more years at $2,200 and $1,800, respectively) Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount. Millennium Bursary $2,000 to $4,000.
(Continued on page 122)

NB

3.

In 2003–04, Saskatchewan offered non-Status Indians and Métis students residing in Northern Saskatchewan an additional $110/week in student loans, for a maximum of $385/week.

Table 2 — Loan Reduction Programs Across Canada in 2003–04 and 2005–06 (continued from page 121)
Program Jurisdiction PE 2003–04 Debt Reduction Grant Available to students who complete a year of studies and whose combined federal/provincial loans exceed $6,000. The amount of loan relief is equal to the student’s total federal/provincial loans minus $6,000, up to a maximum payment of $2,000. It is paid at the end of each year and applied against provincial loans. Application is not automatic. 2005–06

Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount. Debt Reduction Grant Available to students who complete a year of studies and whose combined federal/provincial loans exceed $6,000. The amount of loan relief is equal to the student’s total federal/provincial loans minus $6,000, up to a maximum payment of $2,000. It is paid at the end of each year and applied against provincial loans. Application is not automatic. Millennium Bursary $2,000 to $4,000. Millennium Access Grant Up to $2,500 for low-income students in 1st year Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount. Millennium Bursary $2,000 to $3,500. Debt reduction Available upon successful completion of program with 1 year of expected time-to completion to students who graduate with NSL debt (@50% of borrowers in NS). Program remits 15% of 1st year of borrowing, 25% of second, 35% of third, 45% of fourth and 15% of fifth. On top of this amount, additional “bonus” remission can be gained by working in NS for 50 weeks within 3 years of graduating (an extra 25%) or making 12 loan repayments (an extra 10%). Application is not automatic. Canada Access Grant for low-income students (1st year) 50% of tuition up to $3,000 or total financial aid amount. Millennium Access Grant Up to $2,500 for low-income students in 1st year Millennium Bursary $1,750/year Debt reduction Available to students who have graduated in a timely manner from a program of study in Newfoundland of at least 80 weeks’ length. The student’s combined federal/provincial debt must exceed $210 per week for programs that exceed 128 weeks. The amount of loan relief is equal to the total value of the student’s federal/provincial loans minus the debt minimums described above. It is paid upon completion of studies and applied against provincial loans. Application is not automatic. $0 (but see non-need-based aid) $0 (but see non-need-based aid) $0 (but see non-need-based aid)

Millennium Bursary $2,000 to $4,000. NS Millennium Bursary $2,000 to $3,500. Debt reduction Available upon successful completion of program with 1 year of expected time-to completion to students who graduate with NSL debt (@50% of borrowers in NS). Program remits 15% of 1st year of borrowing, 25% of second, 35% of third, 45% of fourth and 15% of fifth. On top of this amount, additional “bonus” remission can be gained by working in NS for 50 weeks within 3 years of graduating (an extra 25%) or making 12 loan repayments (an extra 10%). Application is not automatic.

NL

Millennium Bursary $1,750/year Debt reduction Available to students who have graduated in a timely manner from a program of study in Newfoundland of at least 80 weeks’ length. The student’s combined federal/provincial debt must exceed $22,016 for programs between 80 and 128 weeks or $172 per week for programs that exceed 128 weeks. The amount of loan relief is equal to the total value of the student’s federal/provincial loans minus the debt minimums described above. It is paid upon completion of studies and applied against provincial loans. Application is not automatic.

Table 3 — Calculation of Parental Contribution
Parental income exemption Program CSLP & provinces4 2003–04 Varies between $28,000 and $33,600 for a two-person family plus $5,000 per extra family member.5 2005–06 Parental contribution rate 2003–04 45% of the first $3,000 of after-tax income above the exemption level, 60% of the next $3,000 of after-tax income above the exemption level, and 75% of all income above that. 2005–06 25% of first $7,000 of net income above the exemption level; 50% of next $7,000 of net income above the exemption level; and 75% of all income above that. Treatment of parental assets 2003–04 2005–06 At the discretion of Same. each province, but generally assets are not considered as resources and so no contribution from assets is required.

Same.

AB

Same as CSLP .

Same.

Same as CSLP.

Same.

5% of net worth of parental business assets over $250,000. 1% of personal assets (excluding RRSPs, vehicles, principal residence and business/farm) over $150,000. Generally assets are not considered as resources and so no contribution from assets is required.

Same.

BC

Same as CSLP .

Same.

Same as CSLP.

Same.

Same.

MB

Same as CSLP .

Below an Same as CSLP. after-tax income of $30,000 for a two-person family, no contribution is required. Same as CSLP. If after-tax income is between $30,000 and $40,000, the contribution is $100 plus 5% of income over $30,000.If after-tax income is above $40,000, then contribution formula is identical to that of the Canada Student Loans Program above.

Unknown.

Same.

ON

As above for CSL, For PSL, below the after-tax minimum of $30,000 for a two-person family (plus $5,000 per extra family member), no contribution is required.

Same as CSLP.

No contribution from assets is required.

Same.

(Continued on page 124)

4. 5.

Except AB, BC, MB, ON, QC, SK. A two-person family consists of one parent and one child.

Table 3 — Calculation of Parental Contribution (continued from page 123)
Parental income exemption Program Parental contribution rate 2005–06 Same. Treatment of parental assets 2003–04 Assets under $90,000 ($250,000 for farmers and fishers) are exempt; parents are required to make a contribution equal to 2% of the value of their assets above this level. 2005–06 No contribution from assets is required.

QC

SK

2003–04 2005–06 2003–04 Same. Below a pre-tax The combination minimum income is 19% of the first of $21,885 (if parents $36,000 of pre-tax are living together) income above the or $19,755 (if parents exemption level, are living apart), 29% of the next no contribution $10,000 in income, is required. The 39% of the next minimum can be $10,000 in income, increased by an and 49% of any additional $2,105 income above that. if both parents work, plus $2,660 for the first child and $2,400 for each additional child, plus $2,200 if the student has a major functional disability. Below a pretax minimum family income of $35,595, no minimum contribution is required.

Weekly Parental Contribution equals = (25.0% of DI)/52 (for a Discretionary Income (DI) between 0–$7,000) OR ($1,750 + 50.0% of (DI–$7,000)/52 if DI is between $7,0006– $14,000 OR ($5,250+ (75.0%*(DI–$14,000)/52 if DI is above $14,000.

Generally assets are not considered as resources and so no contribution from assets is required.

6.

Except AB, BC, MB, ON, QC, SK.

The Price of Knowledge
Access and Student Finance in Canada

Chapter 5

Student Debt: Trends and Consequences

5

127

Chapter 5

I. Introduction
In recent years, numerous observers, especially representatives of students’ unions, have expressed concern about the high levels of debt with which many students graduate. While Canadian researchers have been able to find little empirical evidence that a reluctance to borrow or an aversion to debt deters potential students from post-secondary education (Finnie and Laporte (b); Junor and Usher, 2004), other studies point to the negative consequences of excessive borrowing and debt. These include several commissioned by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation that identify a significant relationship between the amount of annual borrowing and accumulated debt on one hand, and, on the other, the likelihood of a student abandoning studies (Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2006c). They also include the studies cited in this chapter that address debt repayment and default on student loans—issues that have implications for the successful transition of students from higher education to the job market. Only about a third of students borrow from government student loan programs in any given year of study. Nearly half graduate without incurring education-related debt. Many others, having borrowed for their studies, graduate and are able to repay what they owe (Junor and Usher, 2004, pp. 287–91). Most students, therefore, are not too adversely affected by debt. Either they have none or are able to make payments as they begin to earn the higher income usually commanded by those with a post-secondary education. This, however, should not deflect attention from those students who must borrow, sometimes heavily, to afford the type of education that increasingly is a prerequisite for successful and rewarding employment. This is especially true in light of a clear contemporary reality: the country must increase participation in post-secondary education to remain prosperous and competitive. To achieve this goal, increasing numbers of less affluent students, who traditionally have been less likely to go beyond high school and usually require financial assistance to do so, must embark on and successfully complete postsecondary studies. To ensure that all students are given a reasonable opportunity to succeed in their studies, and to make good on the investment they make in their education, two things must happen: first, those who need help must have access to the financial aid they need; second if the investment in financial aid is to be effective over the long term, borrowing levels must not be allowed to rise so high that students drop out before completing, or graduate with unmanageable debt loads. Consequently, it is important for policy-makers to track trends in student debt so that they know whether debt levels are rising and, if so, for whom and by how much. This will be discussed in the first section of this chapter. The good news—namely the stabilizing in average debt levels for university undergraduates since 2000—is offset by a number of worrying observations discussed throughout the chapter: • Recent policy changes suggest that the stabilization in average debt levels for university undergraduates may be short-lived. • A growing number of college students are graduating with high levels of debt. • Between one-quarter and one-third of students with debt default during repayment. • Interest relief programs, which should make it easier for graduates in financial difficulty to avoid defaulting, are not working as well as they should. • Very little thinking has been done by policymakers about how much debt is manageable and how to ensure that students with debt can make successful transitions out of post-secondary education and into the labour market.

For these reasons, Canada’s post-secondary system will continue to be affected by too many borrowers dropping out and too many graduates defaulting on loans when they should be capitalizing on their investment in education. This means that the effectiveness of the country’s investment in students, and in financial assistance programs designed to help many of them, will be reduced. This is a waste of

public financial resources and, more importantly, of the human capital that will not be developed to its full potential. At a time when Canada, more than ever, needs a highly skilled and educated population, and, therefore, must ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to make the successful transition both into and out of post-secondary education, this waste of resources is one the country cannot afford.

129

Chapter 5

II. Student Debt in Canada
University Undergraduate Debt
After more than doubling in the 1990s, university undergraduate debt levels stabilized, increasing by only three per cent (or by about $700 real dollars) during the past six years. In 2006, 59 per cent of undergraduate university students graduated with debt resulting either from a government student loan or borrowing of another type. They owed an average of $24,047 (Figure 5.II.1). The average amount of debt was highest in Atlantic Canada, where 66 per cent of students owed an average of $29,747 in 2006. Debt levels were also above average in British Columbia and below average in the rest of the country, particularly in Quebec, where tuition is substantially lower, university programs are generally shorter and bursaries more common. Among the 48 per cent of graduates who borrowed in Quebec in 2006, the average debt was $12,992.

1

On the surface, the stabilization of university graduate debt is reassuring, considering how quickly debt levels grew prior to 2000. A deeper look reveals reasons for concern. First, it appears that the proportion of university students graduating with debt is rising.2 Second, recent changes to the Canada Student Loans Program (and complementary changes by a number of provincial loans programs) will make more middle-income Canadians eligible for loans, and provide existing borrowers with high levels of financial need with larger loans. This raises the prospect of further increases in both the proportion of students graduating with debt and the amounts owed by borrowers.3 As will be discussed below, this could mean that a growing number of graduates will face debt burdens that impact negatively on their transition to the labour force and on their life

Figure 5.II.1 — Average University Undergraduate Debt for Borrowers Upon Graduation in Canada in 2006 Dollars, 1990–2006 4

Data in this section are taken from a 2007 report on student debt prepared for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation by PRA Inc. This, however, may be a function of the change in data sources. The incidence of undergraduate student debt at graduation in 2000 ranges from 42 per cent, according to the National Graduate Survey, to 56 per cent, according to the Graduating Student Survey. There are no more recent data from the NGS, which will next report on graduates from 2005. In the short term, the average debt levels for all borrowers may fall, due to the fact that many newly-eligible middle income borrowers may borrow relatively small amounts. This does not take away from the fact that students with high levels of financial need will graduate with more debt than before. The average debt figure from the 2000 National Graduate Survey has been omitted in place of the figure from the 2000 Graduating Student Survey, to facilitate comparisons with figures from 2000 and 2003. The 2000 NGS reported average debt of $21,390 among the 42 per cent of graduates reporting any debt.

decisions, such as buying homes, starting a family or pursuing further studies. Several more points can be made about the data on debt among graduating university students. First, they show a need for additional borrowing not met by government. Thirty-nine per cent of all funds borrowed in 2006 came from such sources as financial institutions and family, up from 31 per cent three years earlier. This is further evidence that the decision to raise the limit of the amount that could be borrowed through the Canada Student Loans Program, effective in 2005–06, was the right one, despite its implications for debt after graduation. Second, the data suggest that the accumulation of debt affects some students’ post-graduation plans. Those planning on pursuing more education had less debt (about $3,200) than those who did not. Third, there does not appear to be a relationship between the amount of debt accumulated and the likelihood of having a job arranged for postgraduation or anticipated post-graduation salaries. Unfortunately, this suggests that students may be borrowing substantial funds without considering their future debt-to-earnings ratio and its implications for loan repayment. The importance of this last point will be made evident below in the discussion of debt repayment.

College Student Debt
For many Canadians, the college sector has substantial appeal because its programs are generally shorter and less expensive than those offered by universities. College studies tend to require a smaller investment by the student, measured both by the upfront cost (lower tuition) and the opportunity cost (less time spent in school). For this reason, colleges may have greater appeal to low-income, first generation or Aboriginal students, who tend to have less resources and are more likely to pursue studies that provide a quick tangible return and often prefer to study at institutions close to their home communities. In this context, trends in Canadian college student debt are alarming. Among the 57 per cent of students who reported borrowing some funds during their college studies in 2006, 29 per cent had borrowed more than $15,000. Moreover, as Figure 5.II.2 demonstrates, the number reporting high levels of debt has grown during the last four years. Today, a third of college students will graduate with debt levels more often associated with university graduates. Forty-four per cent have accumulated $10,000 or more in debt, compared to 32 per cent three years ago. This finding again tempers the good

This analysis of college student debt excludes students in Quebec for two reasons. First, particularly in 2005 and 2006, Quebec college participation in the survey was very low. Second, because Quebec college students pay no tuition, their inclusion in the survey would make it impossible to present figures that accurately represent the situation of college students outside the province.

news associated with the recent stabilization of debt levels for university graduates, noted above. As is the case with university students, there is a clear relationship between accumulated college debt and students’ future options. In 2006, 47 per cent of college students who had no debt planned to pursue further post-secondary studies. Fewer than

40 per cent of those with debt had similar plans, including only 21 per cent of students with more than $30,000 of debt; most of those with debt instead intended to find work. Two-thirds of those with more than $15,000 of debt planned to find a job immediately after graduating, compared to only 42 per cent of students without debt.

133

Chapter 5

III. Managing Debt
Much discussion of student debt focuses on average amounts, the incidence of borrowing and the factors that influence its accumulation. Less is known, however, about how graduates cope with debt and repayment. Specifically, policy-makers have yet to think seriously about how to determine what constitutes a reasonable debt burden, and conversely, how much debt is too much. In their forthcoming paper on debt management, Saul Schwartz and Sandy Baum discuss what is known as the “eight per cent rule” which states that student loan payments should not exceed that percentage of a graduate’s pre-tax earnings. This has become a commonly used benchmark in the student loan industry. They conclude, however, that this amount seems to have originated from mortgage underwriting standards, and therefore, only reflects the perspective of the lenders—whose primary interest is to determine the maximum amount the student can borrow without defaulting. Schwartz and Baum discuss other methods of determining what constitutes a reasonable debt burden for graduates, each of which leads to different conclusions about how much debt is reasonable. However, as Schwartz and Baum write, “there can be no single percentage that answers the question of how much students can borrow without risking repayment difficulties.” Leaving “one size fits all” rules behind, Schwartz and Baum nonetheless derive two principles on which to establish debt management policy. First, graduates with very low incomes cannot reasonably be expected to meet their repayment obligations. Second, the more a graduate earns, the larger the share of his or her income should be devoted to debt repayment: those earning lower (but not the very lowest) incomes should be expected to devote between five and ten per cent of pre-tax income to student loan repayment, with the payment-to-income ratio being capped at 18 to 20 per cent for those earning much higher incomes.6 In theory, they argue, the application of these two principles would avoid the worst situations, though doing so would not eliminate all instances of borrowers being in financial difficulty. This would be an improvement on the current situation. For example, the 20 per cent of university borrowers who owe more than $30,000, or the 44 per cent of college borrowers who owe more than $10,000, would have to earn starting salaries well above the median in order to remain below the payment-to-income targets that Schwartz and Baum suggest. This is possible for some, but unlikely for others. It is no wonder, then, that paying back student loans is a challenge for many Canadian post-secondary graduates.

6.

The 18 to 20 per cent maximum number is applied to discretionary income, equivalent to the amount of pre-tax income that exceeds half of median.

135

Chapter 5

IV. Debt Repayment
The data suggest that a significant number of students complete their post-secondary education with debt levels that are simply too large. According to the National Graduate Survey, for instance, postsecondary graduates are increasingly reporting difficulty repaying their loans. In 2000, 27 per cent of graduates reported such difficulty, compared to 21 per cent of respondents in both 1995 and 1990.7 A more in-depth, 10-year retrospective examination of Canada Student Loans consolidated following graduation in the 1993–94 academic year, conducted by Constantine Kapsalis, reveals that almost one out of three students defaulted on their loans.8 Ninety per cent of defaults occurred during the first three years of repayment. Those who defaulted during their first three years did not have debt levels significantly higher than those who repaid their loans in full. Early defaulters earned an average of $13,800 annually during their first three years of repayment.9 Those who went on to fully repay their loans earned an average of $24,200 during the same period. Consequently, it seems clear that managing heavy debt depends on income level following graduation. More recent data from the Canada Student Loans Program reveal that 26 per cent of post-secondary borrowers who consolidated their loans at the end of the 2001–02 academic year had defaulted within three years (Canada, 2006).10 The relationship between post-study employment and income, and the likelihood of default, poses a particular challenge for the student financial aid system, which does not consider future earnings when calculating a student’s current financial need (and, by extension, the size of his or her loan). While those pursuing studies in booming fields may be more likely to find work with starting salaries that
Figure 5.IV.1 — Status in September 2003 of Canada Student Loans Consolidated in 1994–95
39% 28%
Paid in full Defaulted in first three years Defaulted later In repayment

3%

30%

Source: Kapsalis (2006).

allow them to pay back their loans, the student aid system, in assessing their financial need, cannot distinguish between them and students undertaking less lucrative (but not less valuable) careers. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, as evidence from the Graduating Students Survey reveals, there is no relationship between student debt and anticipated post-graduation earnings. Since neither the borrower nor the lender takes post-study income into account, it is virtually impossible for the student aid system to allocate grants to or limit the debt of those most likely to default on their loans. Furthermore, college graduate debt levels are growing faster than university debt amounts, which have stabilized in recent years. Yet college students can be expected to earn less income after graduation.11 Additionally, college students tend to come from less advantaged backgrounds, meaning that they are more vulnerable to financial difficulties. The

7. 8. 9.

Data from the 2005 survey has not yet been published by Statistics Canada. Following graduation, borrowers consolidate their loans with the student lender, establishing the payment schedule and the interest rate. Default occurs when a certain number of student loan payments are missed. The figures in this paragraph have not been adjusted for inflation.

10. The Canada Student Loans Program estimates that it recovers about 60 per cent of the dollar value of defaulted loans. 11. Junor and Usher (2004) report that university graduates earn about $10,000 more per year than college graduates, whose median starting salary is close to $30,000.

combination of their relatively lower income going into post-secondary education, their relatively lower income following graduation and their increasing tendency to borrow substantial sums may culminate in the creation of as many barriers on the way out of college as students encounter on the way in. From a policy perspective, there are two ways to prevent default, assuming the basic cost of attendance remains the same. The first, demonstrated in the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s

research on grants, loan remission, debt and persistence, is to prevent students from borrowing too much on an annual basis. Supplementing student loans with grants—or using loan remission programs to reduce the highest levels of debt—has a positive impact on student persistence.12 The second method of preventing default involves interest relief and debt management measures during repayment, discussed in the next section.

12. The three studies that discuss the relationship between student aid, debt and persistence are summarized in Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2006c.

137

Chapter 5

V. Interest Relief and Debt Reduction
Canadian governments use interest relief and debt reduction programs to help graduates in dire financial straits. Interest relief allows graduates to defer payments on student loans during periods of underemployment. Debt reduction programs reduce the outstanding balance on loans. In theory, interest relief should prevent most default, allowing students to take a break from repayment while getting their financial house in order. Eligible students may benefit from six-month periods of interest relief for up to 54 months, during which government pays the loan interest and interest does not accrue. After students exhaust interest relief eligibility, they can apply for debt reduction. In Canada, however, there is concern about the use (and lack of use) of interest relief. A recent study by John Mortimer and Patrick Codrington of the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities examined participation in interest relief programs among a sample of Ontario students who graduated in 2001–02, reporting on the status of their loans in September 2005. They found that, based on selfreported income, family size and repayable debt, 47 per cent of the cohort would have qualified for interest relief at some point during the first three years of repayment. However, only one-third of these eligible persons had participated in the program. Among graduates who consolidated their loans in 2001–02 and who participated in interest relief within the first three years of repayment, only six per cent defaulted. By comparison, 29 per cent of those who did not participate defaulted. Ninety-two per cent of those who benefited from interest relief found it helpful or very helpful. One third of defaulters who did not use interest relief were unaware of the program’s existence. Of those who applied for interest relief, 40 per cent cited difficulties, particularly in providing proof of their low income and exchanging documents with the loan services centre. Mortimer and Codrington suggest that participation can be increased by improving communications to raise awareness of the program, and by easing the administrative process. Indeed, recent improvements to communications and a simplification of the application process are having an impact: the rate of participation in interest relief for Ontario borrowers who exited studies in 2003–04 is approximately 22 per cent, an increase of six percentage points over the 2001–02 cohort examined by Mortimer and Codrington. Nevertheless, they conclude that at least one out of three eligible students would never access interest relief because they choose to find a way to meet their payments, perceive interest relief as cumbersome or not worthwhile, are uncertain about their eligibility, or submit incomplete applications. Jerry Situ (2006) reports that 12 per cent of those repaying Canada Student Loans in 2001–02 used the federal government’s interest relief program, representing $1.7 billion of the $6.1 billion in outstanding loans being repaid that year. Situ found that, as in Ontario, many eligible graduates did not seek interest relief. Thirty-five per cent of borrowers were eligible for interest relief. However, less than half this group (45 per cent) sought interest relief. He identifies borrowers on social assistance and those with large families as particularly inclined to under-use, concluding that many more graduates facing financial hardships miss out on opportunities to avoid defaulting. These findings are important in view of the data presented in previous sections of this chapter, notably those concerning the growing levels of college debt, and the relationship between post-study employment and income and student loan default.

Such developments would matter less if interest relief programs were working better. The fact that the long-term default rates of interest relief participants are similar to those of non-participants shows that debt management measures such as interest relief can help those in the most difficult circumstances (so long as they choose to take advantage of the available programs). It is nevertheless clear that many

borrowers who do not qualify for these programs face substantial challenges paying back their loans. Without improving and expanding interest relief measures, therefore, easing the transition out of post-secondary education, especially for those students more likely to earn modest incomes upon graduation, will remain a problem.

139

Chapter 5

VI. Conclusion
Without access to loans (whether from governments, banks or family members), many students could not afford to pursue higher education. An effective student aid regime is therefore an integral component of Canada’s post-secondary education system. Currently, most borrowers complete their studies and repay their loans. For others, however, accumulating thousands of dollars in loans can result in dropping out partway through studies or defaulting in the years following graduation. This represents a missed opportunity, both personally for the individuals in question, and more generally for a country whose prosperity and competitiveness is driven increasingly by the advanced skills and knowledge of its workforce. The good news is that, after rising significantly in the 1990s, the debt levels of university undergraduates have stabilized after 2000. Given the recent rule changes that will allow for more borrowers and permit larger loans to be issued in the coming years, however, debt levels could increase again in the near future. While these rule changes will ease the cash crunch in which many low- and middle-income students find themselves, it is very difficult to predict what their impact will be in the long run, although it is unlikely that graduating students will find themselves in a better debt situation. On the college side, debt has risen substantially in the past four years. Unfortunately, this could have negative consequences for the success of students already under-represented in the post-secondary system— such as students from low-income families or Aboriginal students—who are more likely to choose college over university. Furthermore, while programs to assist graduates struggling to repay seem to benefit those who use them, far too few students eligible for such support take advantage of them or are even aware of them. Those who do use them find them complicated. Consequently, as the availability of loans increases in the coming years, several steps appear necessary: • Continue to make grants available to reduce the annual borrowing of students with high levels of financial need or low family incomes.13 • Continue to closely monitor trends in debt levels, and particularly as the effects of the recently expanded loan eligibility and loan limits make themselves felt. • Review support programs for those coping with too much debt, in order to make improvements where necessary. Such improvements should include both an analysis of the populations currently under-served by these programs and a communications program to raise awareness among eligible students about what is available. • Carry out more work to determine the right balance of loans, bursaries and loan remission measures for post-secondary students most likely to face financial and other barriers before, during and after their post-secondary studies. These policy suggestions are important to building the skilled workforce that Canada must have at a time when the baby-boomers are edging toward retirement and the size of the young adult population is about to shrink. Encouraging students from middle- and lower-income families and from groups currently under-represented in post-secondary studies to pursue higher education, and ensuring the availability of the right financial support needed to ensure their success both before and after graduation, will help make Canada a key player in an increasingly competitive global economy, as well as a more cohesive society. To achieve this, we must ensure that student debt is kept to manageable levels, and that, when it is not, effective measures are in place to provide a hand to those in distress.

13. The continued availability of a significant proportion of the grants that reduce the annual borrowing of students with high financial need or low income is currently uncertain. The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s bursary programs, which currently provide $335 million in grants to students each year, are scheduled to end after the 2008–09 academic year.

is a policy and research officer at the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Prior to joining the Foundation's research and program development section, he worked in its communications service, overseeing the publication and promotion of the Millennium Research Series. Joseph is interested in understanding how policies designed to improve equitable access to higher education can be nurtured through research and evaluation. A resident of Montreal, Joseph has a bachelor's degree in journalism from Concordia University, where he is currently pursuing studies toward a master's degree in public policy and public administration.

Joseph Berger

Anne Motte

is a policy and research officer at the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Currently, one of her main activities is to oversee the evaluation of the millennium access bursaries. Prior to joining the Foundation, she worked at the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation on the Future to Discover (FTD) and AVID pilot projects. Anne is an economics graduate of McGill University and Université du Québec à Montréal. is the associate executive director of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. A political scientist by training, he has written extensively about Canadian politics and society in both the academic and popular press. After earning his doctorate as a Commonwealth Scholar at the University of Bradford in England in 1993, he held a Killam postdoctoral fellowship at Dalhousie University before becoming a research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen’s University. During this time, he taught political studies, sociology and Canadian studies at several universities in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario. From 2000 to 2004, he served as research director and subsequently co-director at the Centre of Research and Information on Canada (CRIC), where he oversaw an extensive series of studies of Canadian public opinion and political institutions.